Danke für den Artikel. Es ist echt zeitweise eine unglaubliche Hürde, dass so viele Leute ihr eigenes Giro Konto mit dem Staatshaushalt gleich setzten. Auch hier wieder gefühlt 50% der Kommentare mit diesem Narrativ (in prominenten Medien ganz zu schweigen). Die Frage sollte doch nicht sein ob man Schulden macht, sondern wofür und was für ein Ergebnis man von dem eingesetzten Geld erwartet.
Ich glaube das Narrativ des Girokontos oder der schwäbischen Hausfrau wird doch wieder auch nach dem Schema eingesetzt: einfache Lösungen für komplexe Probleme. Das war doch schon immer das Ding von Konservativen bzw. rechten Parteien. Das komplette Volkswirtschaften so nicht funktionieren, lernt man eigentlich schon im Grundlagenmodul VWL. Und im Artikel wird ja auch schön dargestellt, dass in anderen Ländern die Schuldenquote bei weitem höher liegt und man trotzdem handlungsfähig bleibt. Selbst Firmen funktionieren heute nicht mehr nach diesem Prinzip und vor allem Start-ups können eine höhere Cash-Burn-Rate aufrecht erhalten, solange die weitere Unternehmensfinanzierung sichergestellt wird. Warum also soll das auch nicht für uns als Bundesrepublik gelten? Aber gerade in Deutschland, dem Girokontoland Nummer 1 scheint man es mal wieder besser zu wissen.
Was ich ehrlich gesagt nicht als Nachteil sehe. Scheitern gehört nunmal dazu. Und Investoren wissen das auch. Solange das 10. Unternehmen, in das man investiert hat, alles kompensiert und außerdem noch ein Bonus bekommt, ist doch alles super.
Ja, nur dass der Staat kein Start-up ist und auch keines sein darf.
Der Staat sollte klar definierte Aufgaben haben, um die er sich kümmern muss. In meinen Augen gehört “Spekulationen über die Zukunft anstellen” und “Innovationen vorantreiben” nicht dazu.
Dem würde ich klar wiedersprechen wollen! Gerade Forschungsinstitute wie die Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Fraunhofer etc. tun nichts anderes als überwiegend aus staatlichen Zuschüssen Innovationen und Grundlagenforschungen voranzutreiben. Die Firma Biontech ist das beste Beispiel für so eine positive Entwicklung, die eben mal eine komplette Stadt schuldenfrei machen konnte, finanziert am Anfang durch den Steuerzahler.
Aus meiner Sicht MUSS der Staat vor allem in die Zukunft investieren (Bildung, Infrastruktur, neue Energieformen etc.) um nicht nur wettbewerbsfähig auf dem Weltmarkt zu sein, sondern eben auch dadurch durch mehr Steuereinnahmen wieder Gewinn herauszuschlagen.
Und dann frag Mal die Leute was schlauer ist. 40 Jahre Miete zahlen und etwas sparen um ein Haus zu kaufen oder schulden machen und den Kredit zahlen und gleich das Haus zu kaufen
Wenn du das gesparte Geld investierst, hast du je nach Kauf gute Chance deine Immobilie zu schlagen und bist gleichzeitig deutlich liquider und weniger gebunden.
Die paar Kröten für die Miete frisst das Haus mit Instandhaltung und Nebenkosten locker auf.
Deutschland schaltet auf den Turbo um, um möglichst viele rechtsextreme und nationalistische Punkte rasch umzusetzen. Gestern weniger Geld für Migranten, heute Kriminalisierung von Seenotrettung. Morgen vielleicht doch noch der Arbeitszwang? Mal sehen, was die in Italien machen, oder?
The world is changing, the golden decades of our parents’ post-war reality are over, the sun is setting once again on European soil.
I don’t know exactly what kinds of nightmares await us in the darkness, but I do know that the bloodlust of the European populace will not be sated easily.
Expect extraordinary efforts to subdue, abuse and eventually exterminate people once again. The European populace will not be a bastion of humanitarian ideology in the face of climate migration. It will instead declare war on them, and brutalize them.
I wonder what the timeline would have looked like if European nations had gone after the banks and bankers in 2008 rather than all pushing austerity as a solution.
I’d disagree with your first statement, because there will always be ways for private comunication, especially here, because of how (at least technicly) educated people are here.
And also unlike in China, if something like that’d come now, people already have the resources to set up their own comunication systems.
Tldr: even with Gestapo officers everywhere protest and change would still be possible, hard but possible
This stuff comes in cycles of about 100 years (interestingly there are similar sayings in many cultures about how wealth gets built and destroyed in 3 generations) and invariably when we get to the stage of things being shit for most and wealth being in the hands of only a few people, those “few people” naturally make sure there’s plenty of money for politicians willing to blame the worse off for the problems of the worse off (as otherwise the many would naturally get together and take the stuff that the few have hoarded).
This is when you get the far right (remember the 1930s?!), though in the present day (maybe because this is the first time the cycle has been at a low point in an Era when Marketing and PR are based in the science of Psychology) we also seem to have a lot of the divisive fake-left (you know the kind: “the path for Equality is to treat this group defined by their genetics differently than this other group”) which is doing a wonderful job of keeping the many fighting for crumbs amongs each other whilst “strangely” never, ever, EVER even mentioning the single biggest inequality there is and the pathway via which most other inequalities cause the most pain, that of wealth and the staggering differences in treatment depending on wealth.
So yeah, expect every single political idea that blames people that are not rich for the ills of society and doesn’t even mention that access to resources is extremelly uneven, to “somehow” get funding and find lots of airtime in privatelly owned Newsmedia were they blame entire groups of people based on their genetics or geographical place of birth for all the problems everybody else (but the ultra-rich) have and use a handful of individual cases to “prove” that everybody who looks like that or comes from places like that are “bad people” - there has never been this much investment in hypocrisy and leading useful idiots by the nose because there has never been this much wealth at stake.
Bloodlust? Try self-preservation. It won’t be long before countries will be willing to do whatever it takes to protect themselves from being overrun by migrants.
Accusing fascists of intending to commit genocide is a farcical fleet of fancy to none, other than to other fascists.
I could be accusing the Klan of intending to lynch black people, and you’d make an effort to claim nobody can possibly know the intentions of the Klansmen that well. That the implications from their history has no such bearing on the future. “They just want to make their homes safe!”, you’d cry. “They only bear ill will to real criminals, and they’d never go farther than apprehension and arrest!”
Shut the fuck up and go blow your mind to pieces with a shotgun, WhiteHawk.
You are not worthy of patience. You are not worthy of civility. You are not worthy of rights, freedoms, or protections of any kind. Your kind should be declared war upon again, your kind should be subject to open season again, your kind should never have been allowed to recover.
But you have. So now our futures will be terrifying and bloody. You will suffer. I will suffer. We will live in a selfmade hell, and if you live through enough chaos to regret it you’ll be questioning why you thought this was ever going to work well.
Bro, please get some help. What fascists are you even talking about? It seems you are just trying hard to look for someone to be scared of. I believe the clinical term is ‘paranoia’. But I’m not a medical professional and you really seem to need the help of one, so please go find one before it’s too late.
Yes, but the those laws cover a lot more than banning waterboarding. Its stuff like how to search prisoners when they enter the prison system and so on. The full tile of anti-tortue institutions right now is something like “European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”. For now the problems in the EU are something that should be filed under “degrading”, which is still bad but not as bad as outright torture. But if we stop caring fighting the lesser evils we might come back to a point where we actually have to fight torture.
So lange du auf internationalen Gewässern bist, interessiert es nach deutschem Gesetz nicht wenn du jemand vorsätzlich ertrinken lässt. Rettest du ihn, ist es nach deutschem Gesetz auch egal. Die Person dann nach Europa zu bringen wäre nach dem Vorschlag aber illegal.
Die Frage ist also, wenn das Gesetz würde, wo soll man die Geretteten denn bringen?
So lange du auf internationalen Gewässern bist, interessiert es nach deutschem Gesetz nicht wenn du jemand vorsätzlich ertrinken lässt.
Sicher?
Der Flaggenstaat ist nach Art. 98 Abs. 1 des Seerechtsübereinkommens verpflichtet, die Vorgaben der Seerechtskonvention in nationales Recht umzusetzen.[17]
Durch Deutschland ist dies mit der Verordnung über die Sicherung der Seefahrt (SeeFSicherV) erfolgt, die jeden Schiffsführer zur Hilfeleistung verpflichtet. Verstöße stellen Straftaten nach § 323c StGB oder Ordnungswidrigkeiten nach § 10 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 SeeFSicherV dar.[17]
Neben den internationalen Übereinkommen hat übrigens auch das deutsche Strafgesetzbuch im Ausland und in internationalen Gewässern begrenzte Geltung.
Die Schiffe von Sea-Watch (und befreundeten Organisationen) fahren unter deutscher Flagge, so auch die aktuell eingesetzte Humanity 1 und vermutlich auch die kommende Sea Watch 5. Für diese Schiffe gilt also § 4 StGB:
Das deutsche Strafrecht gilt, unabhängig vom Recht des Tatorts, für Taten, die auf einem Schiff oder in einem Luftfahrzeug begangen werden, das berechtigt ist, die Bundesflagge oder das Staatszugehörigkeitszeichen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu führen.
Die Annahme, dass man im Ausland oder in internationalen Gewässern (zumindest im Hinblick auf deutsches Recht) grundsätzlich tun und lassen kann, was man will, ist weit verbreitet, aber falsch.
The left has its responsibility in this. People are struggling with the bills at the end of the month. The left speaks of minorities and has a similar neoliberal economic view. The politics on minorities are important and the left have to keep them in their program/agenda. Adopt a real left economic view.
But, people don’t care about you if you’re talking about it in the news and debates. The left has to center their campaign around the daily struggles to speak to the people with the people language.
The greens parties have a similar issue. People know them for ecology and ? People don’t know the other parts of the program of the greens parties. They have to stop speaking about ecology and begin with the other topics so people knows how they can help them with the end of the month.
These all need to connect with people again with the people language.
They do this shit in the UK, too - Conservatives have been in power for like 80% of the past 150 years, and the last time Labour were in power was nearly 20 years ago, and even then, they were run by neoliberals with no intentions to challenge the establishment even slightly, so nowhere near being actually left at all, yet somehow Labour and "the left" still get the blame for all of the wrongs in the country.
The fact that Blair back then, and Starmer now are clearly puppets working for the same master as the conservatives (capitalism and the status quo), rather than being an actual opposition, or looking out for the best interests of the people even a little, escapes them, just like the fact that when a socialist did run for PM, and was wildly popular, the establishment's media went on an absolute rampage to discredit him and make him "unelectable" because he posed a real and actual threat to them.
Anyone who looks at the state of politics (always, though it's especially obvious in recent years) and thinks genuine opposition could ever get in power, or that we could ever vote the existing power structure out, is being either wilfully ignorant, or has fallen for the propaganda hook line and sinker, and really shouldn't talk on the matter, because they're just making it worse by literally serving the interests of those they claim to oppose (by always shifting attention and blame somewhere else). (E: never mind the well established strategy of the right co-opting leftist ideas they never intend to follow, just to get the votes, while pointing to those who would actually follow those ideals and calling them "idealists" or just socialists as if those are negatives. and it works!)
And all of this is by design of course, the illusion of choice, the bread and circuses, all designed to make us feel like we have a say, without ever actually giving us one.
The fact the BBC got away with that sums it up nicely, People say Corbyn was unelectable but honestly, he was insanely popular until the attacks started. Speaking to people in person in my life what I noticed is everyone started to say Corbyn was bad but they had no reason to give other than " He’s promised too much he can’t do what he says " or " I just don’t like him "
Clearly the establishment knew what he was going to cost them with state run Electric, Railways & dialing back on the private healthcare
Yup, a disgrace all round. And it wasn't just that he's a vocal socialist, but that he'd been one all of his long and dedicated career, and had proven to stand by his morals rather than by what might seem popular, or profitable to him personally at any given time, like the rest of his colleagues.
I'm under no illusion that Corbyn on his own would have been enough to turn this country in to a full blown socialist one or toppled capitalism, but the fact that they were scared enough of what he could have done (like you mentioned the renationalisation, but also putting money back in to the existing national services like social and health that the rich have been stripping for profit, and taxing them and their corporations significantly more) proves just how big of a threat they really saw him as (and he really was, even in spite of the smear campaign he came so fucking close. For the uninitiated, I think his Glastonbury appearance - I linked to my favourite part which still gives me chills but the whole thing is worth watching just for the sad reflection over what could have been - really made them realise they could never ever possibly even come close be that kind of genuinely popular).
And in Germany the CDU being in government most of the FDR’s existence (and for 16 years before the last election) are loudly talking about being the “alternative” Germany needs (not coincidently choosing that term when the far-right AfD is the “Alternative for Germany”) to fix all the decade long issues… after less than 2 years in opposition.
Conservatives finally understood a simple truth. They only need the votes of their rich clients and the poor gullible morons for a majority and can ignore anyone between. And the populism used to achieve that is much easier and cheaper than an actual political program.
I’m not blaming the parties, neither the ideas. I’m evaluating the strategies of the parties, two radical, different things. The strategies are bad and inaccurate.
A party need to adapt the communication to the audience and the target groups. Some do it with populism, what isn’t right. Populism is never the answer. The communication of the left need to level up so people and voter are convinced. If the parties don’t have a majority, the parties didn’t convince the voter. When I speak to random people, they clearly speak about two topics. The first is how to pay the bills and the second is politics are disconnected. At the end, they don’t elect anyone. What should we on the left do?
Sure, we need to do some marketing and communication. But, I don’t think it’s a good strategy. We need to speak to the people, listen to them to target their needs. The ideas and the programs are the same. What changes is the strategy. It’s to weight the topics to match the needs of the population. After that, you can build others ideas on top of that. Saying “capitalism bad” and explaining it during an hour doesn’t work. Listening to the people, acknowledging and validating the needs, giving a short explanation, then people begin to think capitalism is bad even if the issue is neoliberalism. You adapt it to the audience.
Last week, during an anarchist meeting, we spoke about why capitalism is bad. Yesterday, at another meeting, we spoke about why we struggle with two words about capitalism. The audience was different, but the topic was the same. I sadly don’t see a lot of that.
At least in Germany, there are three “left” parties that are also reflected by European equivalents. The more traditional left, the social democrats and the green. The green are indeed what you are describing with neoliberals focused on disadvantaged minorities. For the social democrats, on the other hand, the problem is, that they still think of wealth as a question of salary, while it’s more a question of if you get a salary or gain your income from capital. In their eyes, somebody with a master degree is a wealthy person, which might have been true in the 70s but it doesn’t reflect the widening of the gap between high-paying jobs and wealth for people with large accumulations of capital. Nowadays, most of the economy’s productivity goes into the pockets of those high-wealth individuals and families. For the more traditional left there is the problem that they also try too hard to go woke, instead of focusing on the needs of people and they miss a lot of potential by adressing the lower classes and frustrated. So, my suggestion to those 3 types were:
Social democrats, you have to refocus on the injustice between work and capital and recalibrate your definition of wealth
Lefts, you have to learn more about the economy, leave the wokeness topics to others and adress the lower classes in a more populistic way
Greens, you have to face the reality that a race where the fastest wins and takes all, will not become more just, by adjusting the start positions, especially when the real killings are made by big betters that don’t even participate in the race
At least part of the Lefts seem to reorganise as a central figure of the party is said to may start her own party that does exactly as what I and you propose for it. However, this was looming for a long time and I think she will chicken out.
Wagenknecht will not lead to a strong left in Germany. The people that voted left before voted left because Gysi and the reasonable opinions he portrayed. Wagenknecht is only a magnet for extremists, that would vote far right (AfD) if it wasn’t for the blatant racism/antisemitism/etc.
If anything the the leftist party will gain more mainstream approval, when Wagenknecht forks off her own party (except for east Germany).
You may be right with Gysi or may be wrong. I think you’re wrong, but that doesn’t matter because even if you were right and Wagenknecht would not start with a quarter of Die Linke, that like her, then you still understimate heavily the electoral shift coming from AfD voters. The potential of a Wagenknecht party is estimated at around 20%.
I fully agree. 60% of AfD voters say they are voting out of protest. It’s a time of massive voter transition, and the left is just busy with minority politics, instead of giving these protest voters a new home. It’s fucking annoying.
You can make politics for minorities once you are (strongly) in the Parliament, but you can’t win an election based on these topics.
The greens parties have a similar issue. People know them for ecology and ? People don’t know the other parts of the program of the greens parties. They have to stop speaking about ecology and begin with the other topics
And right here you are falling for propaganda without even realizing it. It’s not the green parties failing to talk about other issues. It’s other (usually right wing - as basically all greens are also socially left) parties drowning this out, because they know they can divide people by pushing their noses into the ecological problems (and the economic hardships naturally linked to trying to reverse centuries of exploitation).
(Btw… Just like it’s also never actually the left parties talking all day about “woke” topics. That’s also the right-wing parties creating an imaginary discussion because it’s divisive.)
In May 2021, the Guardian reported that Julian Chandra – then vice-president for growth at LBRY, now CEO of Odysee – told employees in an email that “being a white nationalist or nazi isn’t grounds for removal. Are you nazi that makes videos about the superiority of the white race? That is NOT grounds for removal.”
What if everyone is making the wrong assumption about why he bought twitter? I'm convinced he didn't do it to make money. He bought it for the power, to control one of the world's largest microphones. He doesn't care about advertisers who will dictate content rules.
At SpaceX, Tesla, and other companies he hired industry experts. He's running this one completely differently and I believe his focus is politics and power instead of money.
Pretty easy, honestly. You tell him what he wants to hear, you don't tell him what he doesn't want to hear, and you make decisions that are best for your people. If everyone that reports to him behaves like that, he will have very little influence on the company.
Musk is a raging narcissist. He just wants to be told that he's the smartest, funniest person alive.
That's not accurate. At least not entirely. I work with a few ex-Tesla managers who tell me the opposite. He would put his hands on any random detail at any time and override people.
I think both claims can be accurate. What I've gathered is that Tesla and especially SpaceX have people dedicated to preventing or fixing whatever odd ideas he comes up with. So, your friends could be 100% right, but maybe aren't as aware of other people following behind to try and clean up the mess? Or maybe sometimes the Musk Disaster Team doesn't get deployed in time, but they could still exist in general.
At SpaceX, Tesla, and other companies he hired industry experts.
And proceeded to overrule them with idiotic ideas like "scrap all sensors etc, our self driving cars will drive with image recognition only". And now most companies with self driving cars in development are miles ahead of Tesla despite starting later.
Did they start later? Where Tesla had an advance was integrating major parts of a self-driving system into actual customer cars and collecting tons of real-world data. The internal research on autonomous cars probably started on most automakers long before Tesla was founded.
He bought it because he got caught red handed trying to commit securities fraud and if he didn't make good on his offer, the SEC would've at the very least kicked him out of the markets, if not put in prison.
He is now trying to destroy it faster than it will destroy him. Social media is too expensive to run without a carousel of new investors. He can't get any since he took it private. He can't pull the plug on it or his existing investors will crucify him, they're just biding their time on a lawsuit already.
He over played his hand and he is suffering consequences for it. This doesn't make him smart, mind you. He's just scrambling to cover his ass from a blatantly poor and criminal decision.
Yeah, people tend to forget how this all started. He just wanted to see under the hood and he was told that the only way he could do that was if he bought the company.
He saw a big opportunity to both get what he wanted and to manipulate the stock market in a big way. So he made a credible offer thinking that he was smart enough to create a loophole that would give him a way out. His loophole didn't pan out although the stock market manipulation arguably did.
He got too far along in the process to back out and the SEC doesn't fuck around. There was no option other than to actually make good on his offer to buy the company. I don't think he ever truly wanted to own Twitter, but I never thought he would set the company ablaze in such a spectacular fashion.
He's just scrambling to cover his ass from a blatantly poor and criminal decision.
While at the same time still performing a never-ending stream of the same fidgety, impulsive, entitled behavior and decisions that put him into this mess in the first place.
his existing investors will crucify him, they're just biding their time on a lawsuit already.
One wonders how big of a chunk of Tesla and/or SpaceX they've got their sights on, after they really get their knives out and go to Attorney Town on this narcissistic imbecile.
That tracks with what I’ve heard from people in the industry. For Musk and now Huffman, it’s some sort of ideological or philosophical thing in terms of how they’ve dramatically shifted the focus and operation of these previously (mostly) stable companies.
Whether he's in it for the money or the influence doesn't really matter... either way, he's doing it wrong, and he's inconveniencing (or outright harming) people in the process.
Reddit-Geschäftsführer Steve Huffman galt als Mann, der weiß, wie seine Community tickt.
Habe ich was verpasst? Und geht natürlich nicht auf all die anderen tollen Dinge ein die Spez (nicht)getan hat. Und natürlich geht man auch nicht darauf ein was der Apollo Entwickler vorwirft. Sehr oberflächlicher Artikel der uninformierten Leuten ein falsches Bild vermittelt. Besonders das man nicht die völlig übertriebenen API Mondpreise erwähnt, ärgert mich ein wenig.
Ein nicht wirklich passender Titel, wie ich finde. Das Racketes zentrales Anliegen der Umweltschutz ist hatte ich zu meiner Schande bisher überhaupt nicht mitbekommen.
ich denke damit beweist sie im Interview haargenau das Problem. Das ist immerhin etwas, was man so viel in den Medien erlebt. Sie ist da nur eines von vielen Beispielen.
Honestly, I love seeing the twatter news every morning when i wake up. To see what bullshit he's instituted now. Will be a sad day when twatter shuts up shop for good. only because i'll lose a source of amusement
Wo sind eigentlich die Zeitungsartikel, die die Untätigkeit von Volker anprangern? Wo ist die Hetze in der Bild? Wo ist das bashing in sozialen Medien?
Wieso sollte die Bild gegen Wissing hetzen ? Der ist von der FDP und die soll ja von der Bild gestärkt werden. Die Parolen haben das Haus mit Reichelt bestimmt nicht verlassen
Man stelle sich vor, wir hätten einen Grünen Verkehrsminister der 3-4 mal soviel für den Klimaschutz macht wie Wissing aktuell. Der würde von den Medien komplett zerrissen werden
archive.is
Top