The Money Farmers: How Oligarchs and Populists Milk the E.U.(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Money Farmers: How Oligarchs and Populists Milk the E.U.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/world/europe/eu-farm-subsidy-hungary.html
159 comments
"Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices.
They're not rich because they built a company and bought their way into political power (which is how many Western billionaires are made) but because they had political connections and used them to capture state assets. The result is that they are dependent on the government for their wealth- if they piss off the President, they'll get thrown in jail or slipped polonium. So they ended up becoming unofficial conduits of government power.
In the West, it can end up being the other way around, with governments becoming instruments of corporate power.
Whether it makes sense to call both kinds of wealthy people "oligarchs" is up to you, I guess.
They're not rich because they built a company and bought their way into political power (which is how many Western billionaires are made) but because they had political connections and used them to capture state assets. The result is that they are dependent on the government for their wealth- if they piss off the President, they'll get thrown in jail or slipped polonium. So they ended up becoming unofficial conduits of government power.
In the West, it can end up being the other way around, with governments becoming instruments of corporate power.
Whether it makes sense to call both kinds of wealthy people "oligarchs" is up to you, I guess.
> "Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices.
Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0].
That's why the US can also be considered an oligarchy [1].
[0] https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0].
That's why the US can also be considered an oligarchy [1].
[0] https://fs.blog/2017/02/aristotles-politics/
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
maybe this plutocracy/oligarchy framing will break out and overtake the identity politics so dominating the culture (in the US) right now (hoping, but not hopeful).
the problem is not the color of your skin but the imbalance in power caused by many, many decades (5 centuries for some!) of intentional opportunity disparity, with wealth concentration as the metric.
a functioning democracy relies on dispersion of power, which is why we have separation of powers in the constitution in the first place.
the other critical component of a democracy is having an informed and active citizenry. the blame for the current dysfunction lies with all citizens, not just our plutocrats and politicians (although they certainly shoulder a larger proportion). sometimes we need to lean into adversity to maintain our freedoms, rather than hoping some hero will come along and shield us from it.
the problem is not the color of your skin but the imbalance in power caused by many, many decades (5 centuries for some!) of intentional opportunity disparity, with wealth concentration as the metric.
a functioning democracy relies on dispersion of power, which is why we have separation of powers in the constitution in the first place.
the other critical component of a democracy is having an informed and active citizenry. the blame for the current dysfunction lies with all citizens, not just our plutocrats and politicians (although they certainly shoulder a larger proportion). sometimes we need to lean into adversity to maintain our freedoms, rather than hoping some hero will come along and shield us from it.
Exactly. I believe the focus on identity politics, rather than class, to be a big strategic mistake by the left. The emphasis should not be on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc, because although those are serious problems that need to be tackled, they can NEVER be the priority over class, which is and remains by far the greatest source of inequality in the world (again, notwithstanding other factors also being sources of inequality).
It's such a bad job that I wonder how much of it is intentional misdirection, distraction from the true issues.
It's such a bad job that I wonder how much of it is intentional misdirection, distraction from the true issues.
I agree. For quite some time, I've told people that I no longer pay attention to the social left, when it is the economic side of left politics that makes the greatest difference, even to social issues. If you ensure that people who are otherwise marginalised have money, they will have enough influence through their buying power to effectively punish the classes who want them to remain marginalised.
Which is why it matters for the elites to make sure the ones who've been marginalized don't have money. Sure puts a different spin on not hiring someone for "culture fit".
I see an obvious flaw in this plan.
How do you ensure the economic power of say, gay people, when they can be legally fired from their job for just being gay? When they can't even visit their dying loved ones in hospital because they're not allowed to be legally married, never mind get tax benefits or inherit pension benefits etc. How do you stop a majority from punishing them economically and punishing others who try to help them?
Can you talk me through how your approach would have worked for the civil rights movement in the 60s or how the various law currently being drafted that legally prevent people from boycotting specific countries would affect your plans if used against your suggestion?
How do you ensure the economic power of say, gay people, when they can be legally fired from their job for just being gay? When they can't even visit their dying loved ones in hospital because they're not allowed to be legally married, never mind get tax benefits or inherit pension benefits etc. How do you stop a majority from punishing them economically and punishing others who try to help them?
Can you talk me through how your approach would have worked for the civil rights movement in the 60s or how the various law currently being drafted that legally prevent people from boycotting specific countries would affect your plans if used against your suggestion?
Perhaps I should change my framing on this. Yes there are structures available able to subvert the system. Both do need to be worked on, but focusing on one without the other results in diminishing returns. We've focused on the social side of marginalisation for a long time, and I think we're about as far as we can get with it for the time being. We need to switch back to economic matters which also affect more people. Marginalised groups are already in the poorer majority, if for no other reason than the statistical likelyhood of not being particularly rich.
Once we've got more class majority equality, we can switch back to more focused issues.
Once we've got more class majority equality, we can switch back to more focused issues.
To me it seems really stupid, from an economical perspective, to fire a competent employee just because their religion, world-views, sexuality or whatever doesn't align with your own. I'd hope such employees can find good employment elsewhere. If that'd be true, I'd say eventually these issues should work themselves out in the long run, since a more diverse company might be able to outcompete a less diverse company.
That is such a naive framing of this topic when you have structural forces at work here. An example is say half a century ago when you have 99% of businesses practicing racist hiring policies. You can talk about economical inefficiencies all you want but what ends up happening is a segment of the population who are left with no good employment and continuing their generational poverty.
All you read on HN is the thousand ways in which (software) companies are inefficient but stuck in their ways and the market doesn't sort it out. Long hours, butts in seats mentality are the ones I read last. Managers have their own incentives and a lot of those are about perceptions, not necessarily money.
With UBI, they should have enough to still be able to conduct themselves. If unreasonable expenses are still being hoisted on them, then that's still an economic issue. In other words, people should be empowered economically. Being fired for being gay is still a form of economic disempowerment.
It's not a "strategic mistake", but rather a sensationalist divisive message pushed by mass media / the establishment. If you're falling for it, you're falling right in line.
Referring to "the left" (or "the right", for that matter) is more of the same. The people who are more receptive to a certain style of thinking and the political club that exploits them are not a unified group.
Referring to "the left" (or "the right", for that matter) is more of the same. The people who are more receptive to a certain style of thinking and the political club that exploits them are not a unified group.
Read my last paragraph :)
the problem is not the color of your skin but the imbalance in power caused by many, many decades (5 centuries for some!) of intentional opportunity disparity
...which is frequently deployed against people with a different skin color. Class-based analysis is great, but a) it is not an exact science, contrary to the claims of many of its proponents, and b) avoiding the empirical fact of racial discrimination does not make it go away, any more than ignoring the empirical facts of misogyny or any other flavor of discrimination has caused them to go away.
You can argue that these different forms of discrimination are just disguises for class-based discrimination, but it's equally arguable that discrimination against people on the basis of immutable characteristics is a highly effective class ordering mechanism.
...which is frequently deployed against people with a different skin color. Class-based analysis is great, but a) it is not an exact science, contrary to the claims of many of its proponents, and b) avoiding the empirical fact of racial discrimination does not make it go away, any more than ignoring the empirical facts of misogyny or any other flavor of discrimination has caused them to go away.
You can argue that these different forms of discrimination are just disguises for class-based discrimination, but it's equally arguable that discrimination against people on the basis of immutable characteristics is a highly effective class ordering mechanism.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but imho it's problematic to consider class a characteristic that's easily mutable.
When social mobility is near non-existent, then class has effectively become it's very own immutable characteristic. People can be born into wealth and poverty just as much as they can be born with colored skin.
The "American dream" is the anti-thesis to that, stipulating that everybody can elevate themselves out of their lower-class if they just pull those bootstraps hard enough.
But how realistic is that actually nowadays, particularly to elevate larger parts of the population?
When social mobility is near non-existent, then class has effectively become it's very own immutable characteristic. People can be born into wealth and poverty just as much as they can be born with colored skin.
The "American dream" is the anti-thesis to that, stipulating that everybody can elevate themselves out of their lower-class if they just pull those bootstraps hard enough.
But how realistic is that actually nowadays, particularly to elevate larger parts of the population?
yah, racial discrimination is not solved by any means, but i do think the best strategy is tackling the now-many systemic failures of our supposed meritocracy as a way of loosening opportunities around racial discrimination rather than the other way around.
the current prominence of immigration in political discussions, for example, makes it easy to divide on racial lines rather than on fairness or economics, as republicans have effectively exploited. it's led to an economically irrational willingness to sacrifice growth (and its resultant opportunities) in favor of limiting non-white immigration (we cheer 2-3% growth as amazing, while other countries have double-digit growth--like china, whose economy is similarly sized).
so support immigration on economic grounds rather than racial ones, because it can grow the pie more fairly than plutocracy can. most white folks can get behind more growth, but not all will get behind direct compassion and fairness for non-white folks (as bad as that sounds).
the current prominence of immigration in political discussions, for example, makes it easy to divide on racial lines rather than on fairness or economics, as republicans have effectively exploited. it's led to an economically irrational willingness to sacrifice growth (and its resultant opportunities) in favor of limiting non-white immigration (we cheer 2-3% growth as amazing, while other countries have double-digit growth--like china, whose economy is similarly sized).
so support immigration on economic grounds rather than racial ones, because it can grow the pie more fairly than plutocracy can. most white folks can get behind more growth, but not all will get behind direct compassion and fairness for non-white folks (as bad as that sounds).
> > "Oligarch" originally meant the post-soviet kleptocrats who were handed control over formerly state companies at discount prices.
> Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0].
"Original" is a dangerous term which roywiggins shouldn't have used in this case. But roy is right about how the term got used in the Eastern European context. And while things happen in the west too, people complain as much or more billionaires who made it big as outsiders who (initially) had no such connections to political power.
> Aristotle already pioneered the use of the term as meaning "rule by the rich for the rich" aka plutocracy [0].
"Original" is a dangerous term which roywiggins shouldn't have used in this case. But roy is right about how the term got used in the Eastern European context. And while things happen in the west too, people complain as much or more billionaires who made it big as outsiders who (initially) had no such connections to political power.
Yup, I don't know about dangerous, but "original" was definitely innaccurate on my part!
It's a word that came to be attached to post-Soviet kleptocrats, so that's why it ends up being used in that context and not in Western contexts, since it's taken on the meaning of wealth extracted from the state by pure cronyism.
It's a word that came to be attached to post-Soviet kleptocrats, so that's why it ends up being used in that context and not in Western contexts, since it's taken on the meaning of wealth extracted from the state by pure cronyism.
Technically, "oligarchy" means rule by the few (hoi oligoi). The alternative is rule of the many (hoi polloi), also called "democracy."
The distinction goes back to at least the Golden Age of Athens, in the 5th Century B.C. The Greek world was divided between cities ruled by the many and by the few, and every city had an internal struggle between elements favoring one or the other form of rule. If you favored democracy, you turned to Athens for help. Hoi oligoi turned to Sparta for help. It's a bit like the Cold War, with two superpowers with different ideologies vying for favor among the undecided states, and promoting internal factions favorable to one side or the other.
The distinction goes back to at least the Golden Age of Athens, in the 5th Century B.C. The Greek world was divided between cities ruled by the many and by the few, and every city had an internal struggle between elements favoring one or the other form of rule. If you favored democracy, you turned to Athens for help. Hoi oligoi turned to Sparta for help. It's a bit like the Cold War, with two superpowers with different ideologies vying for favor among the undecided states, and promoting internal factions favorable to one side or the other.
For me, I think that no matter what terms are used, the important point is that we don't automatically give "our" oligarchs, or Very High Net Worth Individuals, some sort of free pass on ethics simply because they aren't post-Soviet kleptocrats.
> The result is that they are dependent on the government for their wealth- if they piss off the President, they'll get thrown in jail or slipped polonium. So they ended up becoming unofficial conduits of government power.
Nobility. This concept is called nobility. History rhymes, again.
Nobility. This concept is called nobility. History rhymes, again.
There's an aspect of cronyism present in Russia and former soviet states that isn't present in the west. But make no mistake, we don't have free markets in the US. We have players that get large, then strong-arm their way into creating regulation preventing new players due to too high of entry costs, or regulatory capture occurs.
This is a misleading way to frame it though. In the US, regulation creates speedbumps to competition. In Russia, competition will get you thrown in jail or killed.
That's an accurate history of how the word is used, but in terms of meaning it's system-neutral, being a conjunction of oligo and archon, or few + rulers. It's not like we don't have numerous oligopolies in the US.
"Oligarch" seems to mean "Nominated billionaire".
Oh boy, don't read up on the current president. You might be surprised.
Care to elaborate?
My understanding is that many of the oligarchs quite literally stole what they have during the 1990s free-for-all (Soviet collapse).
This is opposed to many western business people who won by making better products and generally advancing our standard of living. Whether they deserve the astonishing wealth they have is up for debate (I believe in a wealth tax), but but at least they did something for it!
The Wikipedia page says roughly that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch
The Wikipedia for Gazprom has a great timeline of how one such business became an elaborate exercise in theft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom#History
This is opposed to many western business people who won by making better products and generally advancing our standard of living. Whether they deserve the astonishing wealth they have is up for debate (I believe in a wealth tax), but but at least they did something for it!
The Wikipedia page says roughly that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch
The Wikipedia for Gazprom has a great timeline of how one such business became an elaborate exercise in theft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazprom#History
> many of the oligarchs quite literally stole what they have during the 1990s
Yeah well, it's not like people like Richard Branson didn't do the same (to this very day)...
Throughout the ages, wealth tends to be opportunistically accrued, to put it mildly. Steinbeck wrote something about that. It's just that we are somewhat closer to the age of "primary enrichment" when it comes to Russia, whereas we've kinda forgotten our own robber barons.
Yeah well, it's not like people like Richard Branson didn't do the same (to this very day)...
Throughout the ages, wealth tends to be opportunistically accrued, to put it mildly. Steinbeck wrote something about that. It's just that we are somewhat closer to the age of "primary enrichment" when it comes to Russia, whereas we've kinda forgotten our own robber barons.
I'm unware of stories where Richard Branson, or any other present-day British or American billionaire, got their wealth by capturing a business as it was spun off from government control. Private corrections companies are the closest example I can think of, and I don't think anyone would accuse the media of being friendly towards them.
Branson preyes on privatizations in the UK. He captured the most profitable train line in the country and extracted large profits from it. He's currently busy doing the same with the National Health Service.
Scientific American recently had an article on how wealth concentration is inevitable, without active mechanisms to continually counter it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...
And there was already in ancient Greece, some 2600 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seisachtheia
"a set of laws instituted by the Athenian lawmaker Solon (c. 638 BC–558 BC) in order to rectify the widespread serfdom and slavery that had run rampant in Athens by the 6th century BC, by debt relief."
"The seisachtheia laws immediately cancelled all outstanding debts, retroactively emancipated all previously enslaved debtors, reinstated all confiscated serf property to the hektemoroi, and forbade the use of personal freedom as collateral in all future debts. The laws instituted a ceiling to maximum property size - regardless of the legality of its acquisition (i.e. by marriage), meant to prevent excessive accumulation of land by powerful families."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seisachtheia
"a set of laws instituted by the Athenian lawmaker Solon (c. 638 BC–558 BC) in order to rectify the widespread serfdom and slavery that had run rampant in Athens by the 6th century BC, by debt relief."
"The seisachtheia laws immediately cancelled all outstanding debts, retroactively emancipated all previously enslaved debtors, reinstated all confiscated serf property to the hektemoroi, and forbade the use of personal freedom as collateral in all future debts. The laws instituted a ceiling to maximum property size - regardless of the legality of its acquisition (i.e. by marriage), meant to prevent excessive accumulation of land by powerful families."
State company privatizations are a form of theft.
Not with guns, but same results.
The value is such that no one could normally buy the infrastructure, yet such infrastructure is often sold for pennies.
The value is such that no one could normally buy the infrastructure, yet such infrastructure is often sold for pennies.
Sometimes that infrastructure is only worth pennies due to associated debts, and restrictions that governments impose on laying off unproductive workers.
If it's sold on a market, then it's value is it's sale price. Competing investors want to make money too.
Well, according to market proponents anyway. I think we should stop treating them as economic oracles and consider other forms of valuation as well, like the marginal cost to the population if the service and the jobs it provides didn't exist.
Obviously people who are potential bidders in a market are heavily incentivized to downplay the value of what they're bidding on, so it's not clear to me why their metric of valuation should be privileged above all others. It's just like the idea that efficiency should be conceived of in terms of minimizing production cost, without regard to the effects of that approach on customer/employee retention or organizational resilience - partly because those second-order effects are a little harder to measure, partly because owners have an economic incentive to promote that particular definition above all others.
Obviously people who are potential bidders in a market are heavily incentivized to downplay the value of what they're bidding on, so it's not clear to me why their metric of valuation should be privileged above all others. It's just like the idea that efficiency should be conceived of in terms of minimizing production cost, without regard to the effects of that approach on customer/employee retention or organizational resilience - partly because those second-order effects are a little harder to measure, partly because owners have an economic incentive to promote that particular definition above all others.
Elon Musk comes to mind.
According to Wikipedia, which you liberally quote, the definition of oligarch has nothing to do with the way their assets have been obtained.
Behind every great fortune is a great crime.
No one becomes a billionaire without stepping on some toes.
2. The crime to gain it and the crime to keep it.
>My understanding is that many of the oligarchs quite literally stole what they have during the 1990s free-for-all (Soviet collapse). This is opposed to many western business people who won by making better products and generally advancing our standard of living.
But totally compatible with how western business people got their start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
But totally compatible with how western business people got their start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
Incorrect for two reasons. One, we’re talking about groups of people tied together by how they got wealthy. You are apparently lumping together Bezos and Zuckerberg in with railroad industrialists who have nothing in common other than they are “western business people.”
2) The oligarchs literally stole money from the State. The robber barons, although accused of using unscrupulous methods, did not.
2) The oligarchs literally stole money from the State. The robber barons, although accused of using unscrupulous methods, did not.
> the robber barons, although accused of using unscrupulous methods, did not.
That’s a bold claim that I don’t believe holds up. Even setting aside specifically illegal business practices (bribery, violence, fraud) - the robber baron industrialists exploited the rules of capitalism to concentrate wealth and enrich themselves on the backs of their workers and society. They got ludicrously rich, and everybody else got... what? Less competition in the oil industry? In that sense they robbed us all.
Even if you believe that capitalism is the right system for the world, you have to see extreme concentration of wealth as a problem. Put simply, what is better for society: 1 billionaire, or 1,000 millionaires? I believe that it’s pretty clearly the latter.
That’s a bold claim that I don’t believe holds up. Even setting aside specifically illegal business practices (bribery, violence, fraud) - the robber baron industrialists exploited the rules of capitalism to concentrate wealth and enrich themselves on the backs of their workers and society. They got ludicrously rich, and everybody else got... what? Less competition in the oil industry? In that sense they robbed us all.
Even if you believe that capitalism is the right system for the world, you have to see extreme concentration of wealth as a problem. Put simply, what is better for society: 1 billionaire, or 1,000 millionaires? I believe that it’s pretty clearly the latter.
It’s not a “bold claim” to say that something that may or may not be undesirable (wealth concentration) is different than something that has been illegal under our laws going back to Biblical times (stealing).
Also, the whole “robber baron” thing is distorted: https://fee.org/articles/how-the-myth-of-the-robber-barons-b.... By and large they became wealthy because they provided an incredibly valuable new service that catalyzed vast amounts of new economic activity. I suspect 50 or 100 years from now, you’ll read similar revisionist histories about the dawn of the Internet age. The proponents of central planning are already working on it.
Also, the whole “robber baron” thing is distorted: https://fee.org/articles/how-the-myth-of-the-robber-barons-b.... By and large they became wealthy because they provided an incredibly valuable new service that catalyzed vast amounts of new economic activity. I suspect 50 or 100 years from now, you’ll read similar revisionist histories about the dawn of the Internet age. The proponents of central planning are already working on it.
I think it’s a bold claim because although nobody is saying john d rockafeller broke into a bank and stole money, he has certainly been accused of corrupt (illegal) business practices.
But if we set illegal business practices aside, I still think it’s bold to say the massively wealthy industrialists didn’t do anything wrong because of the case i made in my comment (in short: the inherent immorality of large wealth accumulation).
> By and large they became wealthy because they provided an incredibly valuable new service that catalyzed vast amounts of new economic activity.
What was the new and valuable service consolidating the US oil industry provided? There were oil companies, that was already happening... what value was added by rolling it all into one ball? If you believe in capitalism you would agree that competition is good for an industry, so how is the thing that made rockafeller so rich (consolidation) good for anyone but him?
And i already believe that a lot of what has happened in the last 10-15 years of the internet age is actively bad for our society, no central planning needed - just open eyes.
But if we set illegal business practices aside, I still think it’s bold to say the massively wealthy industrialists didn’t do anything wrong because of the case i made in my comment (in short: the inherent immorality of large wealth accumulation).
> By and large they became wealthy because they provided an incredibly valuable new service that catalyzed vast amounts of new economic activity.
What was the new and valuable service consolidating the US oil industry provided? There were oil companies, that was already happening... what value was added by rolling it all into one ball? If you believe in capitalism you would agree that competition is good for an industry, so how is the thing that made rockafeller so rich (consolidation) good for anyone but him?
And i already believe that a lot of what has happened in the last 10-15 years of the internet age is actively bad for our society, no central planning needed - just open eyes.
Also an aside: I started reading that article... I was giving it a fair shake (tho generally finding it unconvincing), until I encountered this sentence:
> The catalyst for this negative view of American entrepreneurs was historian Matthew Josephson, who wrote a landmark book, The Robber Barons. Josephson, the son of a Jewish banker, grew up in New York and graduated from Columbia University
In what world is his being jewish relevant to the article, except to dog-whistle anti-semetic protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion conspiracy bs? Disgusting.
> The catalyst for this negative view of American entrepreneurs was historian Matthew Josephson, who wrote a landmark book, The Robber Barons. Josephson, the son of a Jewish banker, grew up in New York and graduated from Columbia University
In what world is his being jewish relevant to the article, except to dog-whistle anti-semetic protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion conspiracy bs? Disgusting.
FEE is quite biased.
>One, we’re talking about groups of people tied together by how they got wealthy. You are apparently lumping together Bezos and Zuckerberg in with railroad industrialists who have nothing in common other than they are “western business people.”
I'm not talking about Bezos and Zuckerberg. I'm talking about how industrialists on the west got their start in the "good ole times".
Point being that post-Communist countries elites used the same methods that early western capitalism used, to bootstrap themselves into capitalism...
>2) The oligarchs literally stole money from the State. The robber barons, although accused of using unscrupulous methods, did not.
The oligarchs didn't have to have "stole money from the state" (not directly at least). Rather, much like western capitalists of yore and of modern day, they benefited from having "friends" in the state, legislators in their pockets, etc, to secure rents and monopolies, special deals, thwart competition, etc.
I'm not talking about Bezos and Zuckerberg. I'm talking about how industrialists on the west got their start in the "good ole times".
Point being that post-Communist countries elites used the same methods that early western capitalism used, to bootstrap themselves into capitalism...
>2) The oligarchs literally stole money from the State. The robber barons, although accused of using unscrupulous methods, did not.
The oligarchs didn't have to have "stole money from the state" (not directly at least). Rather, much like western capitalists of yore and of modern day, they benefited from having "friends" in the state, legislators in their pockets, etc, to secure rents and monopolies, special deals, thwart competition, etc.
Not really.
By that standard Bill Gates is a robber baron.
By that standard Bill Gates is a robber baron.
Arguably true. Think of the war microsoft waged against Linux in the late 90s-early 2000s, or their attempts to co-opt and destroy the www using non-standards compliance in internet explorer. I see that as a company damaging the common good to increase their wealth. I.e. Robbing us, enriching themselves
If Bill Gates is included, then the definition is so broad as to lose any usefulness.
If the net is so wide as to include all billionaires, that’s only 2000-ish people. not saying they are definitely all robber barons but just giving this some scope.
Just like the word 'regime' is used for governments you don't like.
And 'agenda'. Both totally innocuous, until you adopt a certain accusatory tone, and suddenly it's 'wooh, they're under a regime, bet there's some sort of agenda'!
Meanwhile the speaker is on the '5-2' regime and printing off the agenda for their 9 o'clock.
Meanwhile the speaker is on the '5-2' regime and printing off the agenda for their 9 o'clock.
[deleted]
Its because oligarch has a very specific meaning; someone who has a large share of a market and there are only a few other competitors.
Oligarchs exist in eastern europe due to how industry was broken away from the state when the state released control over it. Selling off access to the industry ultimately resulted in a small number of powerful players in control.
There is no problem with NYT or other media outlets calling them exactly what they are.
Oligarchs exist in eastern europe due to how industry was broken away from the state when the state released control over it. Selling off access to the industry ultimately resulted in a small number of powerful players in control.
There is no problem with NYT or other media outlets calling them exactly what they are.
Your first sentence is the definition of "oligopoly", not "oligarchy". Oligarchy is when you have a large share of political power not marker power (though they can go together).
The NYT appears to be going after Eastern European politicians here, which is surely deliberate as they tend to be conservative and against immigration, so the ideological enemies of the New York set. But it seems they got distracted along the way by the shocking discovery that the EU is opaque and corrupt. The most interesting thing about this story isn't that some Hungarian academic thinks he got fired for criticising the government (i.e. his employer) but rather, that the New York Times' Brussels correspondent has never previously investigated the EU itself.
It's basically modified form of communist centralized control of the economy and closer to feudalism than it is American style crony capitalism and regulatory capture.
Although I can see how someone could mistake the two, the former is far more obvious form of corruption, while the latter is wrapped in language like 'saving local x industries against foreign competition' or well intentioned liberal equalization that always somehow ends up benefiting the politically well connected over the wider society, trading one problem for worse ones.
Although I can see how someone could mistake the two, the former is far more obvious form of corruption, while the latter is wrapped in language like 'saving local x industries against foreign competition' or well intentioned liberal equalization that always somehow ends up benefiting the politically well connected over the wider society, trading one problem for worse ones.
USA is a worse oligarchy than USSR ever was.
https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/US-Territory...
https://mronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/US-Territory...
So you're saying:
1)US corruption is as bad as Russia and the other Eastern European dictatorships and....
2)...this excuses the appalling autocratic behavior of Orban
I would like to see fans of a US leader who has been caught in some scandal try to say "but the Easten European dictators do it"
I suggest that these points are not only completely fallacious but actually the exact kind of distraction that oligarchs promulgate to keep their power: rather than discuss their own oppressive corruption, which the public might do something about, find something foreign to make people mad at.
And apparently it's trivial to push these intentional distractions to the top of discussions and prevent even the first steps of removing the Kleptarch's mob.
1)US corruption is as bad as Russia and the other Eastern European dictatorships and....
2)...this excuses the appalling autocratic behavior of Orban
I would like to see fans of a US leader who has been caught in some scandal try to say "but the Easten European dictators do it"
I suggest that these points are not only completely fallacious but actually the exact kind of distraction that oligarchs promulgate to keep their power: rather than discuss their own oppressive corruption, which the public might do something about, find something foreign to make people mad at.
And apparently it's trivial to push these intentional distractions to the top of discussions and prevent even the first steps of removing the Kleptarch's mob.
The one I get a kick out of is "It's terrible that a foreign government would meddle in our elections" when that is literally what we have been doing all around the world for the last century.
So true! :-)
Oligarchy is basically what the US is.
Oligarchy is basically what the US is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 'Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy' 2014
Oligarchs are generally ex kgb and where heavily involved with the Russian mafia. Or were directly to apart of it and then outright stole the industry they were wanted as long as they didn't talk smack
[deleted]
Hungarians are not really slavic.
"Oligarch" and "Plutocrat" is often a propaganda term.
Have you considered that they're all oligarchs?
I use oligarch for descriptive purposes and clout.
Oligarch = Rentier Capitalist?
I think the distinction is that in Eastern Europe, the politics is literally corrupt. In the US, bags of money aren’t used. It’s actually legitimized by loose campaign finance laws, so wire transfers are just fine!
I think the distinction is that in Eastern Europe, the politics is literally corrupt. In the US, bags of money aren’t used. It’s actually legitimized by loose campaign finance laws, so wire transfers are just fine!
It never fails to infuriate me how deeply this type of corruption is present at every level of the EU.
Are you an industrial pizza producer? Get 200.00 euro funding to bake patatos in the pizza ovens.
Want a digital agency to build you a new website? Just have the agency bill it as multi-language communication services, and get back 40%.
A public tenders for an IT security audit at a local municipality tailer made for a company with the political connections.
Over two million euro divided between industry partners to participate in research on "decentralised computing" but never install the software that was developed. Not that it mattered because the software didn't work. I worked as a subcontractor of a subcontractor on the project and was the only outside of academia to try it out and found some obvious errors.
Are you a student who attends university in a different city than your officially domicile and need to vote in the next election? Send an email with your ID and student card to get a rebate on the travel expenses.
You don't get cancer by just having one cell in your body multiply uncontrollably. It needs friends to trait hormones and enzymes with.
Are you an industrial pizza producer? Get 200.00 euro funding to bake patatos in the pizza ovens.
Want a digital agency to build you a new website? Just have the agency bill it as multi-language communication services, and get back 40%.
A public tenders for an IT security audit at a local municipality tailer made for a company with the political connections.
Over two million euro divided between industry partners to participate in research on "decentralised computing" but never install the software that was developed. Not that it mattered because the software didn't work. I worked as a subcontractor of a subcontractor on the project and was the only outside of academia to try it out and found some obvious errors.
Are you a student who attends university in a different city than your officially domicile and need to vote in the next election? Send an email with your ID and student card to get a rebate on the travel expenses.
You don't get cancer by just having one cell in your body multiply uncontrollably. It needs friends to trait hormones and enzymes with.
This is absolutely true. Popular European opinion is that the UK is insane to leave the EU. But a huge part of the EU is just swimming in bullshit. I knew many middle class Hungarians whose family friends scored them a nice EU grant to start some sort of business. Obviously 99% of those businesses went nowhere. Rinse and repeat. The irony is that is actually deters real investment because why risk €100k of your own money when the business next door will rip-off your idea with €200k of free EU money.
And that’s not to count the absolutely incredible mid and high level corruption that this article discusses.
Source: lived in Hungary for 5 years
And that’s not to count the absolutely incredible mid and high level corruption that this article discusses.
Source: lived in Hungary for 5 years
The EU budget is laughably small: about 160 billion Euros. Compare that to the US Federal budget of 4.1 trillion dollars. The overall size of the two economies is similar.
Outside of the agricultural sector, the EU budget doesn't play that big a role. The main point of the EU is to facilitate the common market by setting common rules (business regulations, right of movement of people and goods, and so on) for the member states to follow.
1. https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-budget/expendit...
2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/2018_Fed...
Outside of the agricultural sector, the EU budget doesn't play that big a role. The main point of the EU is to facilitate the common market by setting common rules (business regulations, right of movement of people and goods, and so on) for the member states to follow.
1. https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-budget/expendit...
2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/2018_Fed...
"Huge part"? "You knew"? "99%"?
Got any citations number on those observed numbers and any basis to claim it was EU that did it? Or is this just you deciding that EU is bad and then fitting things to your view?
Got any citations number on those observed numbers and any basis to claim it was EU that did it? Or is this just you deciding that EU is bad and then fitting things to your view?
Just go read stories from the UK Eurosceptic press over the decades. They've been digging up stories of EU corruption since forever. The only reason the UK is seen as "weird" by people in other EU states is because the press is ideologically loyal to the EU institutions throughout most of the world and doesn't report on or investigate this stuff. But in the UK they do (to some extent).
Even look at this story. The NYT really wanted to go digging for dirt on Orban and Hungarian society in general, Orban being famous mostly for resisting EU integration and resettlement efforts, and being notoriously unpopular in Brussels. But they found they couldn't because the EU lacks even very basic levels of openness. You aren't going to read about EU corruption from them, that's for sure - the fact that they only just noticed this says they've been turning a blind eye for years.
For instance, go look at the stories in the UK about farmers being paid to not breed pigs. I'd like to get paid to not breed pigs! I think I'd be good at it!
Even look at this story. The NYT really wanted to go digging for dirt on Orban and Hungarian society in general, Orban being famous mostly for resisting EU integration and resettlement efforts, and being notoriously unpopular in Brussels. But they found they couldn't because the EU lacks even very basic levels of openness. You aren't going to read about EU corruption from them, that's for sure - the fact that they only just noticed this says they've been turning a blind eye for years.
For instance, go look at the stories in the UK about farmers being paid to not breed pigs. I'd like to get paid to not breed pigs! I think I'd be good at it!
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/category/euromyths/
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/category/euromyths/
See my other comment on this thread about that site. Most of those "myths" are actually cases where the press told the truth and the EC just didn't like it.
I feel like this "pig" example may not be a very good one. It's clear the farmers were paid not to breed pigs for a good reason - overly low prices due to oversupply. The United States has passed similar subsidies to address our agricultural oversupply. Canada's done the same thing, quite infamously with their dairy industry.
Just go read stories from the UK Eurosceptic press over the decades.
You won't find many facts there.
You won't find many facts there.
So who is the asshole here? Sounds that it is Hungarians and not EU. It is the same thing as blaming the homeowner for leaving doors open and not the burglar.
As a counterexample, pypy and many other free software projects have gotten EU funding. Pypy has in the past been very helpful to me in making my Python code run faster so I think it was money well spent!
http://doc.pypy.org/en/latest/index-report.html
http://doc.pypy.org/en/latest/index-report.html
I think that you and your peers could afford to use your own money to make your code run faster and the EU money could be used to fund more important stuff.
If Pypy would have been commercial software it would have costed $3500 USD per year and server or more. Because that is at least how much Azul Zing costs and Pypy is very comparable to that. https://www.azul.com/products/pricing/ So I wouldn't have been able to afford that.
I get where you're coming from, but I actually think that governments probably should fund some open source software projects. Some of those projects are so fundamentally important that basically everyone relies on them, including governments.
Governments can buy software which it needs the same way as any one else I don't see a reason why it should pick winners or losers of open source projects.
1000x this. I live in Austria right now and most start-ups here are funded with EU or Government grants.
That's really nice but the problem is most of them are designed to suck up as much of that free no-strings-attached grant money as possible rather than build a successful product.
That's really nice but the problem is most of them are designed to suck up as much of that free no-strings-attached grant money as possible rather than build a successful product.
No just startups, there are established companies who take enough of their revenue from involvement in EU sponsored projects that it effectively become the sole purpose of their business. I've been involved in a few of these projects (for a fairly legitimate firm) but you encounter the same companies over and over again.
One of the goals of these projects is often to do an initial development phase and then bring in a new tranche of companies to trial/expand what you have developed. There are groups of companies that have developed a symbiotic relationship where one of them gets into a particular project and then pulls in their fellows in the subsequent round. It is also common to see them tendering to diverse projects in the hope that one of them gets accepted and they all then pile into it.
The formal review meetings that I have attended have been extremely uncomfortable because I know that the people are on stage flat out lying about what they have achieved. Generally all they have done is some token development so provide a few screenshots for a presentation and then talk about how it has revolutionised their business whilst pocketing the vast majority of the cash.
One of the goals of these projects is often to do an initial development phase and then bring in a new tranche of companies to trial/expand what you have developed. There are groups of companies that have developed a symbiotic relationship where one of them gets into a particular project and then pulls in their fellows in the subsequent round. It is also common to see them tendering to diverse projects in the hope that one of them gets accepted and they all then pile into it.
The formal review meetings that I have attended have been extremely uncomfortable because I know that the people are on stage flat out lying about what they have achieved. Generally all they have done is some token development so provide a few screenshots for a presentation and then talk about how it has revolutionised their business whilst pocketing the vast majority of the cash.
Do you have any source on this "most startup" thing? Because my experience in Vienna did not fit that bill and I wonder if you have actual numbers you've checked.
> grant money as possible rather than build a successful product.
You are not thinking the right way. Machinery for writing good grant applications is a successful product.
This is why research universities are such great training grounds.
You are not thinking the right way. Machinery for writing good grant applications is a successful product.
This is why research universities are such great training grounds.
Austrian start-up are a total scam. They're designed to milk those fat subsidies and do little else. It doesn't matter if you get 200,000 on your first application, 150,000 on the next .. you're not working to establish a product and build a market and add value to it - you're working to keep the grant writers happy.
> That's really nice but the problem is most of them are designed to suck up as much of that free no-strings-attached grant money as possible
How could you possible know that? Clearly you are making this up.
How could you possible know that? Clearly you are making this up.
Could you point me to any sources where I can read more about this things, e.g. grants on "multi-language communication services" and such?
Not meaning to doubt you, but it all seems a little too good (or maybe bad) to be true, doesn't it?
Not meaning to doubt you, but it all seems a little too good (or maybe bad) to be true, doesn't it?
The 40% is an exaggeration, I got the number of the top of my head. But yes, the Flemish government has a number of these type of programs that pay for all sort of random things. Don't forget that the people administrating these schemes also need to get paid.
https://www.vlaio.be/nl/subsidies-financiering/subsidiedatab...
I've already posted a link for another source in another comment.
Edit: This is how to get a refund for voting: https://vlaanderenkiest.be/faq/wanneer-krijgt-u-uw-reiskoste...
https://www.vlaio.be/nl/subsidies-financiering/subsidiedatab...
I've already posted a link for another source in another comment.
Edit: This is how to get a refund for voting: https://vlaanderenkiest.be/faq/wanneer-krijgt-u-uw-reiskoste...
There's nothing wrong with getting a refund for voting if you have to travel for it. Not refunding this travel could prohibit fairly poor people from voting. The idea is to encourage voter participation by removing the financial obstacle to voting.
The 40% is an exaggeration, I got the number of the top of my head.
Why did you do that, the facts aren't hard to find and you may well learn something along the way.
Why did you do that, the facts aren't hard to find and you may well learn something along the way.
Voting: how is it an EU thing? Provide a source for EU document because i certainly haven't heard anything like that in my country.
Yeah that's a lot of "citation needed" and conflating incentives with corruption.
Or maybe incentives are corruption and the oil and corn businesses in the US are the worse offenders
Or maybe incentives are corruption and the oil and corn businesses in the US are the worse offenders
Thats the thing, all of this is a mater of public record[1].
We like to pretent in the EU that the US stinks (and sometimes it does) but please let that not be an excuse not to wash ourselves.
https://www.imec-int.com/drupal/sites/default/files/inline-f...
https://www.imec-int.com/drupal/sites/default/files/inline-f...
You linked to a two-page PDF promoting some "big data" thing.
While no doubt a lot of corruption is going on in countries like hungary or bulgaria, CAP subsidies were always used by politicians as a political carrot. That's why greece (the largest per capita subsidy recipient until recently) ends up still having ~13% farming population which produces very little. The system was always easy to game and there was too little regard for where the money is going. People would claim ownership of land that didn't exist, to the point where entire towns had to be moved on the map, because there just wasn't enough land to fit. Farm subsidies ended up being free vote subsidies for every politician, left and right.
The situation is not much different with other types of subsidies tbh. Economies are becoming too dependent on EU funding, and businesses adapt by creating a facade of productivity, in order to attract more and more EU funding. This is unsustainable and will not end well of course. But, considering how many votes are contingent to it, everyone pretends to look away.
The situation is not much different with other types of subsidies tbh. Economies are becoming too dependent on EU funding, and businesses adapt by creating a facade of productivity, in order to attract more and more EU funding. This is unsustainable and will not end well of course. But, considering how many votes are contingent to it, everyone pretends to look away.
“His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county. Neighbours sought him out for advice on all subjects, for he had made much money and was therefore wise. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” he counselled one and all, and everyone said “Amen.”
Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Joseph Heller, Catch-22
That's not something new, that's how it is for decades and has nothing to do with agriculture production itself.
It has mostly been a way (among others) to raise, at least virtually, the purchasing power of smaller european countries and make this closed system work.
There is an 80s greek short film in form of documentary that shows how they used to discard all that production, subsidized by the EU, because there was simply no demand for it.
Sadly it's all greek and no subtitles around but pictures will tell the story: https://youtu.be/o25DPfZeFxI
It has mostly been a way (among others) to raise, at least virtually, the purchasing power of smaller european countries and make this closed system work.
There is an 80s greek short film in form of documentary that shows how they used to discard all that production, subsidized by the EU, because there was simply no demand for it.
Sadly it's all greek and no subtitles around but pictures will tell the story: https://youtu.be/o25DPfZeFxI
While the article centers specifically on Hungary, this is true on other countries as well. In Spain for instance the biggest recipients of such subsidies are the House of Alba, a family connected to the nobility.
It's also well known that a lot of farmers don't even produce much, since the subsidies are tied to how much land is planted, not how much is collected from it. With other countries having better economies of scale, most of spanish farming lives from the money gotten by subsidy and cut their losses when picking up the produce.
It's also well known that a lot of farmers don't even produce much, since the subsidies are tied to how much land is planted, not how much is collected from it. With other countries having better economies of scale, most of spanish farming lives from the money gotten by subsidy and cut their losses when picking up the produce.
On the other hand the EU commission wanted a trade and possibly even unification agreement with the Ukraine very badly, while being fully aware the country was defacto run by Oligarchs.
This goes two ways.
Note: I live in Europe, and as such have a good understanding of the politics around here.
This goes two ways.
Note: I live in Europe, and as such have a good understanding of the politics around here.
In eastern EU I am sure that everyone that is rich is because of "connections," nothing works unless you kiss the ring. You can work all your life and die penniless, others will get to buy acres by the beach or lease them for 99 years for small change. Or get major contracts to build roads, infrastructure, health care etc. Unless you pay your overlords, your business will be shut down
You should come visit us in Africa. It will probably make you feel better. Some in Africa have become rich from NGO money meant for the poor. Working for an NGO is now actually a profession. I always had in it mind NGOs should be temporary, provide relief during a natural disaster. Donors do try set strict rules on how the money can be spent but there is always a way to game the system. The participants of a workshop will stay at a connected individual's lodge and pay inflated prices. Cars used to ferry people at a charge and so on.
Same is for example is true for the city employees in San Francisco. They don't become rich, but they are essentially tenured, and there are more than 30,000 of them, in a city of less than a million. In the meantime, the city is in utter decay by Western standards, semi permanent homeless encampments, BART with its 1970 trains and infrastructure, permanent garbage on freeway shoulders, terrible road surfaces with no snow.
i m seeing an opening for corruption-squashing technoloty, although i have no idea how it would work
Tech is one sector in which some eastern EU people strike it rich without connections to the oligarchs.
One example from Latvia: MicroTik CTO Arnis Riekstiņš [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MikroTik
One example from Latvia: MicroTik CTO Arnis Riekstiņš [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MikroTik
These kind of comments make me sad. Yes,there are some people who made themselves extremely rich by exploiting their political connections, using dodgy deals with criminal world and etc. However,most made their money in legal ways working their socks off to make it work. Those may not be the usual zillionaires,but they are pretty rich. This is like saying that everyone in the US live like those in Bel Air.
That comment goes too far, but I was happy to see some opposition to all the comments "hey, it's actually the same in USA" which are completely ignorant of the situation with the oligarchs, and of the post-communist countries in general.
at least
Bulgaria
Romania
Macedonia
Albania
Serbia
Montenegro
Kosovo
Romania
Macedonia
Albania
Serbia
Montenegro
Kosovo
Which countries do you mean by easter EU?
I would understand if you mean former USSR, but EU countries?
I don't see such things in Poland (which is in central Europe - Europs center is in the center of Poland, but some Westerners think it is in Eastern).
I don't see such things in Poland (which is in central Europe - Europs center is in the center of Poland, but some Westerners think it is in Eastern).
With respect, only Poles think Poland is the center of Europe. It's on the western side of the East.
Or people who know that Europe goes on until the Urals, which most definitely does not put Poland on the eastern side.
Doesn't matter. I'm Hungarian and we (education system, media, govt etc) are also big on this Central Europe thing (we are in "the heart of Europe" is a common phrase). This is okay if we're talking about culture and history or geography.
But economically speaking there is East and there is West. Grouping Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland etc. into a Central Europe surely makes us feel good, but economically it's ridiculous.
But economically speaking there is East and there is West. Grouping Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland etc. into a Central Europe surely makes us feel good, but economically it's ridiculous.
Since when does continental geography come into this? By that definition most of Europe is in Russia.
Well, East, West, North and South are pretty geographical names so expect people to put geography here.
EU is using taxpayer money to buy loyalty. Because EU has no political base of it own it has to create one.
All the EU administration staff who is loyal to abstract organisation because of generous perks and benefits not to mention early retirement. All the local politicians for whom EU financed projects are huge political win. All the anti-EU populists who get plenty of EU subsidies as farmers or parishes.
All the EU administration staff who is loyal to abstract organisation because of generous perks and benefits not to mention early retirement. All the local politicians for whom EU financed projects are huge political win. All the anti-EU populists who get plenty of EU subsidies as farmers or parishes.
At least for my country, NYT is correct that a large portion of the subsidies goes to few companies but that's not the whole story. Quite a bit of those companies are renting the land from regular people - land ownership is very fragmented here. The companies amass vast areas of rented land and, yes, the subsidies benefit them but what I've noticed that as a result of competition, the rents increase to a point where most, if not all of the subsidy, goes to the land owner, rather than the company that farms the land.
So, it's not as simple as the article makes it seem but even with that in mind, it's far from a perfect system, as it doesn't do much to increase the competitiveness/productivity/sustainability of the EU agriculture sector. It's just a transfer of tax money to land owners, be they oligarchs or regular people.
So, it's not as simple as the article makes it seem but even with that in mind, it's far from a perfect system, as it doesn't do much to increase the competitiveness/productivity/sustainability of the EU agriculture sector. It's just a transfer of tax money to land owners, be they oligarchs or regular people.
afaik the subsidies would go to the landowner, not the company who's renting it, no?
Renting the land essentially means you temporarily own it, along with all the benefits you may get, including subsidies. Subsidies definitely don't go directly to landowner. Only indirectly via the rent payments.
The opening paragraph from NYT: „CSAKVAR, Hungary — Under Communism, farmers labored in the fields that stretch for miles around this town west of Budapest, reaping wheat and corn for a government that had stolen their land.”
1. The Csákvár State Farm was originally the estate of Esterházy family (the biggest landowners in Hungary).
2. There was an agricultural cooperative in Csákvár, owned by the farmers. It was a rather successful venture. The state had not owned the land of the cooperatives in Hungary. They worked for themselves.
Is this a supposedly factual piece of quality journalism, or a cheap propaganda?
It is wrong in the sense that the peasants had never owned it, but right in the sense that collective ownership under communism was a sham. They should have had a chance to own it after communism, but Orban's fascists have stolen it.
They were liberals at the time and spoke for tolerance etc. (Not joking, Orbán used to be a liberal, he even was the vice president of the Liberal International up until 2000 or so). He became conservative in the mid 90s.
Orbán also fiercely condemned the style of Putin's rule while he was in opposition. He accused of the then PM (socialist) of going to Putin as the party leaders went to Moscow during communism. This was up until 2008 for sure. They also waved Tibet flags when Chinese diplomats visited etc. They turned around 180 degrees on many issues since they are in govt.
Orbán also fiercely condemned the style of Putin's rule while he was in opposition. He accused of the then PM (socialist) of going to Putin as the party leaders went to Moscow during communism. This was up until 2008 for sure. They also waved Tibet flags when Chinese diplomats visited etc. They turned around 180 degrees on many issues since they are in govt.
Goes to show, you can never trust politicians, even when they seem nice at the time.
It's a shame the opposition are so divided and inept. Obviously control of old world media is still pretty important.
It's a shame the opposition are so divided and inept. Obviously control of old world media is still pretty important.
The opposition just recently took back Budapest and several cities. So the situation is changing.
Budapest has been more left leaning for a long time. The 2010 elections were special because people everywhere were very fed up with the previous socialist government for various reasons: Corruption, some effects of the global crisis were blamed on them (but they definitely contributed their own share of mismanagement), and of course the "Őszöd speech" leak wherein the PM admitted at a party meeting that they've been lying for years about the economy and they haven't got anything of significance done over the years prior.
The point is, before this landslide victory of Orbán in 2010, Budapest used to be a socialist and left liberal bastion, along with a few other cities such as Szeged. Budapest's mayor was the same left winger (Demszky) for the 20 years between 1990 and 2010.
The divide between cities and the countryside is huge though. Orbán is still overwhelmingly popular among villagers and the poor.
The point is, before this landslide victory of Orbán in 2010, Budapest used to be a socialist and left liberal bastion, along with a few other cities such as Szeged. Budapest's mayor was the same left winger (Demszky) for the 20 years between 1990 and 2010.
The divide between cities and the countryside is huge though. Orbán is still overwhelmingly popular among villagers and the poor.
I wonder if the Brexiters will use this report - I would be if I was them.
Why bother? They've done pretty well so far just by making things up.
That's the EU loyalist line but look at the comments in this thread. Tons of people saying, yeah, old news, EU money is corrupt and distorting, why is this suddenly in the NYT? But notice how they're all people reporting personal experiences. They're not linking to investigative journalism. That's because journalists largely refuse to report on this kind of thing ... except in the UK where the EU is actually held to account by the press.
The EU routinely claims any criticism of itself is a lie, a myth, made up etc. But it's not the case.
The Commission actually had a huge blog dedicated to rebutting the "myths" as they put it, from the British press. But if you examine the posts you'll see many of them admit the stories were actually true. They aren't myths at all - that is itself a lie!
For instance:
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-european-developmen...
The attitude on display here sums up EU grant awards in a nutshell. A story about a wasteful grant to train trapeze artists in Africa (wtf) is described as "the press chose to ridicule circus artists and coconut production"! No, the press was ridiculing the EU. The rest of the answer to this "euromyth" is stating the funding did happen but it was all for a good cause so that's ok.
Or this one about agricultural grant budget going up and fraud levels being high.
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/cap-subsidies-are-they-...
The story is primarily about fraud, asking why the EU can't stop it. The Commission's response to this "euromyth" is that it's not their job to ensure the subsidies aren't gamed, which is hardly a rebuttal.
The EU routinely claims any criticism of itself is a lie, a myth, made up etc. But it's not the case.
The Commission actually had a huge blog dedicated to rebutting the "myths" as they put it, from the British press. But if you examine the posts you'll see many of them admit the stories were actually true. They aren't myths at all - that is itself a lie!
For instance:
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-european-developmen...
The attitude on display here sums up EU grant awards in a nutshell. A story about a wasteful grant to train trapeze artists in Africa (wtf) is described as "the press chose to ridicule circus artists and coconut production"! No, the press was ridiculing the EU. The rest of the answer to this "euromyth" is stating the funding did happen but it was all for a good cause so that's ok.
Or this one about agricultural grant budget going up and fraud levels being high.
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/cap-subsidies-are-they-...
The story is primarily about fraud, asking why the EU can't stop it. The Commission's response to this "euromyth" is that it's not their job to ensure the subsidies aren't gamed, which is hardly a rebuttal.
That's the EU loyalist line but look at the comments in this thread.
There isn't much substance.
There isn't much substance.
That doesn't sounds like a wasteful grant at all. Wasteful spending is spending on things like war and for profit insurance companies, things that suck the life out of the world.
Whereas circus arts and coconut production give life.
Whereas circus arts and coconut production give life.
And yet Europe has massive youth unemployment throughout large regions, there is poverty, there are problems. Why are they spending money on trivialities like circus performers in Africa: a place Europeans don't live?
If you can't see why many people would be upset by forcing taxpayers to cough up money and then spending it on that, I'm not sure what to say. Resources aren't free.
If you can't see why many people would be upset by forcing taxpayers to cough up money and then spending it on that, I'm not sure what to say. Resources aren't free.
We all do better when we all do better.
Good for them. Perhaps the idea of funding the EU and taxation in general should be abandoned if you don't like it. I don't like it -- which is why I live in a place with almost no taxes. People always told me to leave if I didn't like it, so I did.
[deleted]
Funny detail in our ongoing political shift: 'populist' apparently now codes as 'bad guy' for a lot of the NYT reader base.
William Jennings Bryant ain't happy.
William Jennings Bryant ain't happy.
More like used to code for anti-business, whereas presently codes for nativist.
[deleted]
That's a good way of putting it.
I could write a book on the assumptions, stereotypes and missed opportunities involved in buying into that shift.
I could write a book on the assumptions, stereotypes and missed opportunities involved in buying into that shift.
This has been true for a long, long time, back to Hofstadter's book "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" in 1964.
Partially true.. used to be that fealty to working class unions and such was pretty sacrosanct.
Blue bloods were always threatened by it of course, but they used to be split between liberals and northeastern Republicans.
I'd say using populist as an uncontroversial shorthand for bad is a pretty big change for a movement calling itself 'left'.
(This is to say nothing about Orban's merits or lack thereof, just noting the terminology)
Blue bloods were always threatened by it of course, but they used to be split between liberals and northeastern Republicans.
I'd say using populist as an uncontroversial shorthand for bad is a pretty big change for a movement calling itself 'left'.
(This is to say nothing about Orban's merits or lack thereof, just noting the terminology)
The NYT is not "left". It's always been the newspaper of the establishment. They've always criticized populists, because they want to draw a line to say that certain elements "go too far".
It is just another proof that some government intervention creates a bad outcome for the majority.
I feel we'd be remiss if we didn't also note that some government intervention creates a good outcome for the majority.
[1] https://fair.org/home/russia-has-oligarchs-the-us-has-busine...