Bolsonaro Wins in Brazil

3 hours ago, mthebold said:

Why is Europe doing this though?  What long-term advantage could there possibly be to allowing poor, uneducated, potentially violent immigrants into a developed nation?  

Exactly the same as here in America. Third world immigrants are much more needy and very likely (at least in the first and second generations) to vote for leftist/socialist policies. In the case of Muslims, they are mostly against Christianity and many leftist/socialists are also.They are both in favor of strict government control of the people also. A match made in hell IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mthebold said:

Why is Europe doing this though?  What long-term advantage could there possibly be to allowing poor, uneducated, potentially violent immigrants into a developed nation?  

Astute question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Serious question : Do you all view the world from a zero-sum perspective?

Certainly not. I have seen, during my life, how socialism is a one way street though. Once they take control they do everything they can to consolidate power and undermine the inner workings of the government to control all aspects of it. They also work with leftists throughout the establishment to keep control. They have used the CIA and State Department, the government employee unions, educators, the press etc. to solidify their position. 92% of stories about President Trump are negative even though half of the nation supports him. Not content with that they use Silicon Valley, California leftists to suppress the voices of conservatives.  It is a miracle that Trump was ever elected. 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far Right its what's required to beat the extreme left. no-one else had the power or popular vote to get rid of PT who have put Brasil in the hole we find ourselves in. The problem lies in when we think of right wing we tend to imagine the far right or the far left in first world countries, something completely different due to cheques and balances in that first worlds social situation. Unfortunately Brasil has a huge majority of uneducated people who cannot make a political decision in a "democracy" where you MUST vote, their lies the fertile ground for socialism (actually communism) to take roots. Offer someone a bag of rice and they will vote for you. Brasil has turned a right handed corner after years on a left hand roundabout where the country was robbed and the politicians (including the former president and PT leader Lula being Jailed) who spouted socialist promises were giving to the ignorant with one hand and robbing the country dry with the other, total Hypochracy. Jair Bolsanaro is the current required medication to treat the sick situation Brasil finds itself in. Should be interesting lets see...

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

My oldest is 14. I do not give him a chance to say no thank you to knowledge... 

Haha. Really? Any knowledge at all? You just cram it down his throat? I doubt that. I think I'll have to make a blog post about multiculturalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 11/6/2018 at 9:24 PM, mthebold said:

Why is Europe doing this though?  What long-term advantage could there possibly be to allowing poor, uneducated, potentially violent immigrants into a developed nation?  

Its not poor uneducated potentially violent immigrants thought, you need to read a bit more widely. The majority of the immigrants from Syria were educated as they had the most to lose under ISIS plus they had the money to leave add in the population decline in Europe, as most of the world, and the best way to get your population up is migration. The violent part is because the younger ones have been brought up in countries that have women as second class citizens and they are having problems working out the change and that is a big problem in a very straight laced, christian, basically racist society such as Germany. Most of the tickboxes were good just the Islam bit that failed.

I should add as further proof of the selective immigration policy Europe continues to try to stop immigrants from Africa who have low education standards who bring nothing apart from an increase in population.

Edited by jaycee
added final point, also terrible typos later noticed
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of Syrian refugees have gone back to Syria now, though. They are war refugees: war's over, they go back to rebuild their home, for which they have my utmost admiration. Millions who rode the "Syrian refugees" wave, though, are staying. They are not refugees and they are not going back.

@Rasmus Jorgensen, my blog post, as promised. I'd love to hear your perspective. I'm sure it will be quite different from mine, which is great for a fuller picture.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marina Schwarz said:

The majority of Syrian refugees have gone back to Syria now, though. They are war refugees: war's over, they go back to rebuild their home, for which they have my utmost admiration. Millions who rode the "Syrian refugees" wave, though, are staying. They are not refugees and they are not going back.

@Rasmus Jorgensen, my blog post, as promised. I'd love to hear your perspective. I'm sure it will be quite different from mine, which is great for a fuller picture.

Well written blog post, Marina.  Thanks!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2018 at 11:41 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

They already are. But in this guy's case it may not be just a dramatic "far". I've come across some very, let's say, impressive quotes on gays, for example. But let's see how he fares. Obviously, the pendulum has swung again, like it did in Mexico, though in the opposite direction.

Marina, We should all take care to not believe everything we read these days. We had some episodes here which incensed most Brazilians, episodes from foreign newspapers and so called stars with political agendas. The Guardian newspaper jumping all over the "Faschist" president elect due to his back to basics family values. Roger Waters (Ex Pink Floyd) was touring in the middle of the election and was paid a sizeable sum of money to add a hashtag into his light show which was contra Jair Bolsanaro, he was very surprised with the reply from the crowd, unable to sing and feeling like an idiot, he had been played, but still continued to support the left until he was told to stop or risk being Jailed for crimes against the constitution during election periods. I personally was gutted as I had tickets to see him and ended up giving them away, embarrassed that a foreigner (I'm British) would come and start stirring up a political cauldron and then leave none the wiser. Brasilian politics is very confusing. We start with up to 40 parties from communist to hard line conservative all with the same agenda (more or less) and during the election period they all peddle there wears to the right crowd. So with a Left and a Right we have whats called the Centrao (Central) all of these central parties take1 to 4 % of the first round of the votes, the second term is decided by the two most voted parties during the first round. Then for 21 days  the two party go at it, but with support from the centrao who jump ship or board whichever ship will take them, suddenly there policies and values change, you can imagine what comes of this mish mash of charlatans. Bolsanaro came from nowhere and side swiped the PT (Partida Trabalista) -(Workers Party) even after being stabbed while on the electoral campaign, he conducted his whole second round from social media, as he had to be fitted with a colostomy bag and had several operations he was lucky to live.

Sorry to drag on so he won the election and will now have to lower his rhetoric and by political osmosis he will slowly drift to the Centrao, all the big talk is done to get elected, not new in any election world wide. One thing for sure Brasil cannot do any worse than the last 12 years of PT and the fraud and graft schemes which broke the state of Rio de Janeiro. Just today Petrobras announced a BRL$ 6 Billion profit for the quarter, the best results since 2012, I wonder why.

 

Im glad you started this topic and wished I had seen it earlier, Brasil will be an influential player in the Oil market as we move ahead, hopefully Petrobras will become privatised in the pure sense not the way it is at the moment, privatised when it suits the government by exporting crude and then buying it back which brings some of the highest price gas at the pump world wide. We are self sufficient in combustion derivatives due to LNG cars and Alcohol there's no reason to have such inflated gas prices and certainly no need to export Oil and then buy it back.

 

Okay I have said my piece, thanks again for starting this thread.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Marina, We should all take care to not believe everything we read these days.

We certainly should as we should verify with more than one source. That one was genuine, I thought, inasmuch as I didn't see it refuted. Valuable insight, thank you!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 hours ago, mthebold said:

Your professor wasn't wrong.  I've heard the claim that Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves, but chose to do so because it was to his advantage.  This claim implies that the point of contention leading to the American Civil War was states' rights.  Regardless of what transpired exactly, states' rights were certainly an issue. It's complicated though: civil rights, states' rights, and the need to compete in the world were all tangled into a single conflict.  In retrospect, it seems like something discourse & diplomacy could have solved more cheaply.  

I was actually trying to be a little witty. 

My point was - Abe Lincoln was a tyrant, but as we know from history a needed tyrant. I wonder what judgement history will pass on Trump? And in a wider sense the US of A for electing him. Would be fun to re-visit this discussion later in 10 - 15 years time... 

---------------------------------

As we are on a O&G forum I will give a O&G example as to why I believe the nationalist protectionist agenda does not work : Jones Act. Back in the 60s and 70s American companies dominated the offshore O&G industry. Had it not been for the Jones Act, they still would. Now, I am not saying that certain imbalances does not need addressing, I do however serious doubt that the longterm consequences of how they are being dealt with are understood. It seems to me that short turn gains will come at a serious longterm cost. 

---------------------------- 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 hours ago, mthebold said:

Why is Europe doing this though?  What long-term advantage could there possibly be to allowing poor, uneducated, potentially violent immigrants into a developed nation?

I think this needs to be viewed in a wider context - Europe should have been doing more to stabilize the ME a long time ago. There's a historical responsibillity. Same as there is a human responsibillity. I am NOT saying that immigration policies in Europe are perfect. Far from it. But I am saying that doing nothing is NOT the solution. 

I am betting that some of you that disagree with me go to church. Try asking your preacher what the bible says about helping people in need. Not everything is a great conspiracy. 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

15 hours ago, mthebold said:
16 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Serious question : Do you all view the world from a zero-sum perspective?

I know what a "zero-sum game" is, but what do you mean by "view the world from a zero-sum perspective"?  I'd like to be certain we agree on that definition before discussing further.  

Sorry. Loosely translated from Danish. Essentially a zero sum game, but in a general sense, so that it is not just down to economics also culture etc. 

 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

The majority of Syrian refugees have gone back to Syria now, though. They are war refugees: war's over, they go back to rebuild their home, for which they have my utmost admiration. Millions who rode the "Syrian refugees" wave, though, are staying. They are not refugees and they are not going back.

@Rasmus Jorgensen, my blog post, as promised. I'd love to hear your perspective. I'm sure it will be quite different from mine, which is great for a fuller picture

will read and comment on the post. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Haha. Really? Any knowledge at all? You just cram it down his throat? I doubt that. I think I'll have to make a blog post about multiculturalism.

I think you know what I meant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I do but the German minister's suggestion did not suppose a choice in the matter and the option of choice is very important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

As we are on a O&G forum I will give a O&G example as to why I believe the nationalist protectionist agenda does not work : Jones Act. Back in the 60s and 70s American companies dominated the offshore O&G industry. Had it not been for the Jones Act, they still would. Now, I am not saying that certain imbalances does not need addressing, I do however serious doubt that the longterm consequences of how they are being dealt with aren't understood. It seems to me that short turn gains will come at a serious longterm cost. 

Can you elaborate on the Jones Act, how it affected offshore O&G, and what longterm effect you think current policies will have?  I'm not well-versed in this topic. 

It might help to give you my current, limited understanding: various countries use tariffs, VAT taxes, bureaucracy, technology transfers, and other restrictions to gain trade advantages.  Unable to gain congress' support, Trump enacted tariffs to address the imbalances. 

In the case of China, we're dealing with an oppressive government that abuses any advantage it can find. I hear US companies talking about all the market share they can gain in China, but I doubt China will let them have it.  In the mean time, China actively steals corporate secrets, buys strategically important companies, and forces technology transfers.  It classifies itself as a "developing" nation to gain legal advantages at the same time it attempts to compete in with the most advanced nations in the most advanced technologies.  In short, China cannot be trusted. Considering that, tariffs against China, specifically, make sense purely from a national defense point of view.  We don't need China for cheap labor - or anything else, for that matter.  We'd be better off sending our business to the small, Pacific nations trying to avoid China's influence.  

But that's just my limited view.  What are your thoughts? 

 

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think this needs to be viewed in a wider context - Europe should have been doing more to stabilize the ME a long time ago. There's a historical responsibillity. Same as there is a human responsibillity. I am NOT saying that immigration policies in Europe are perfect. Far from it. But I am saying that doing nothing is NOT the solution. 

I am betting that some of you that disagree with me go to church. Try asking your preacher what the bible says about helping people in need. Not everything is a great conspiracy. 

Why is there a historical & human responsibility to aid the Middle East? 

 

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Sorry. Loosely translated from Danish. Essentially a zero sum game, but in a general sense, so that it is not just down to economics also culture etc. 

 

I'm still not following you.  Can you give me an example of "zero sum thinking" vs "non-zero-sum thinking"? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Can you elaborate on the Jones Act, how it affected offshore O&G, and what longterm effect you think current policies will have?  I'm not well-versed in this topic. 

Here is a previous conversation about the Jones Act.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

Can you elaborate on the Jones Act, how it affected offshore O&G, and what longterm effect you think current policies will have?  I'm not well-versed in this topic. 

see comment in seperate thread. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, mthebold said:
7 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Sorry. Loosely translated from Danish. Essentially a zero sum game, but in a general sense, so that it is not just down to economics also culture etc. 

 

I'm still not following you.  Can you give me an example of "zero sum thinking" vs "non-zero-sum thinking"? 

Basically it means that an economy, culture, religion can only flourish at the expense of another. Peaceful growth and co-existence is not possible according to this way of thinking. 

I believe in the free market & innovation. Some would call me a globalist. That is not to say that the market does not need some regulation to stay free, but I will get to that later. 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mthebold said:
6 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I think this needs to be viewed in a wider context - Europe should have been doing more to stabilize the ME a long time ago. There's a historical responsibillity. Same as there is a human responsibillity. I am NOT saying that immigration policies in Europe are perfect. Far from it. But I am saying that doing nothing is NOT the solution. 

I am betting that some of you that disagree with me go to church. Try asking your preacher what the bible says about helping people in need. Not everything is a great conspiracy. 

Why is there a historical & human responsibility to aid the Middle East? 

Middle East & Africa where a lot of immigrants into Europe are coming from is partly a mess because of the European colonial powers who carved landmass into unnatural countries and then just left... After that the EU created a ridiculous economic subsidy policy that basically ensured former colonies had no chance to build their economies. 

As to the human obligation - I would seriously challenge anybody here to spend a couple of days in a refuge camp in Turkey, Syria or anywhere in Africa and feel that we need to do something. Now, I am NOT saying bringing lots of immigrants into Europe is the answer, but they came knocking. Had Europe intervened, we would not be in this mess - and yes, I believe that it is Europes responsibillity to intervene in our backyard (NOT Americas), just as it is Americas responsibillity to stop the genocide in Venezuela. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

23 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Basically it means that an economy, culture, religion can only flourish at the expense of another. Peaceful growth and co-existence is possible. 

I believe in the free market & innovation. Some would call me a globalist. That is not to say that the market does not need some regulation to stay free, but I will get to that later. 

Your definition of "Non-zero-sum" sounds reasonable.  I would add a couple points of caution though: 

1) "Non-zero sum" can mean "negative sum".  I.e. if your country tolerates economics, culture, and religion known to destroy wealth, they will destroy your country's wealth.  To wit:
- Most people who win the lottery end up bankrupt within a few years. The sum total of their culture was not capable of handling wealth. 
- Central & South America have the same abundant natural resources as the US as well as a multi-century head start, yet they've failed to do anything with it. Their culture is pleasant, but doesn't appear capable of maintaining a high-tech civilization.  Transfer those people wholesale to the US, and they'll most likely achieve the same results they achieved in their home countries: corruption & destruction of wealth. 

The burden of proof lies on a given culture to prove its effectiveness.  Only after proving itself should it be accepted with open arms.  

2) That two things work independently in their respective contexts does not mean they'll combine harmoniously.  E.g. Muslim nations have a habit of oppressing women; we in the US explicitly outlaw that.  These two cultures do not mix harmoniously.

A good rule is, "If you move to someone else's country to enjoy its wealth & opportunity, you adopt it's culture."  If people don't like America's culture, they're welcome to stay home and live with the consequences of their own.  

 

To summarize all of this: I can see cases where different cultures are compatible and can mix harmoniously.  I can see other cases where cultures are clearly ineffective and should be avoided.  Ultimately, ineffective cultures should be supplanted by effective ones.  

Edited by mthebold
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, mthebold said:

the case of China, we're dealing with an oppressive government that abuses any advantage it can find. I hear US companies talking about all the market share they can gain in China, but I doubt China will let them have it.  In the mean time, China actively steals corporate secrets, buys strategically important companies, and forces technology transfers.  It classifies itself as a "developing" nation to gain legal advantages at the same time it attempts to compete in with the most advanced nations in the most advanced technologies.  In short, China cannot be trusted. Considering that, tariffs against China, specifically, make sense purely from a national defense point of view.  We don't need China for cheap labor - or anything else, for that matter.  We'd be better off sending our business to the small, Pacific nations trying to avoid China's influence.  

But that's just my limited view.  What are your thoughts? 

I agree with the overall perception. 

That being said - I also believe that American leadership and standing in the world is based on: 

1) Economic strength

2) Military strength 

3) Ethical / moral superiority / leadership

They way I see it Americas comparative economic strength is being weakend. Eventually this will lead to weaker comparative military strength. And in my view Trumps behaviour is eroding USAs moral highground as the natural leader of the free world. In the longterm I think this will damage Americas influence. 

To be clear - I do not disagree with addressing some trade imbalances. I just think Trump is going about it wrong. He would be better off trying to isolate china, by building coaliations. He might get short-term results, but at what cost? I guess we will know in 10 - 15 years.

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Middle East & Africa where a lot of immigrants into Europe are coming from is partly a mess because of the European colonial powers who carved landmass into unnatural countries and then just left... After that the EU created a ridiculous economic subsidy policy that basically ensured former colonies had no chance to build their economies. 

As to the human obligation - I would seriously challenge anybody here to spend a couple of days in a refuge camp in Turkey, Syria or anywhere in Africa and feel that we need to do something. Now, I am NOT saying bringing lots of immigrants into Europe is the answer, but they came knocking. Had Europe intervened, we would not be in this mess - and yes, I believe that it is Europes responsibillity to intervene in our backyard (NOT Americas), just as it is Americas responsibillity to stop the genocide in Venezuela. 

If Europe screwed it up, then I agree that Europe should fix it.  That said, I would note that many of these regions were technologically backward, violent holes before Europe ever arrived.  In some cases, it's possible Europe's presence was an improvement.  E.g. the entirety of Sub-Saharan Africa failed to produce a single noteworthy civilization, was practicing slavery long before Europeans arrived, and gladly sold each other to European slavers.  That's not Europe's fault; they screwed themselves up.  Put simply: before assigning blame, I would look back at the entire history and be certain blame is justified.

I don't need to spend time in a refugee camp because both I and my ancestors made the necessary sacrifices to avoid that.  I would also consider that some people can't manage resources.  It doesn't matter how much wealth and opportunity you give them; they'll destroy it all.  To wit, I recall a coworker going on about the plight of inner city kids.  I asked the obvious question: why are people who can't afford kids having kids?  In my family, we don't do things like that.  Hence, we don't suffer the way others do.  I bring this up because there will be no end to poor people making expensive decisions.  We could bankrupt ourselves trying to help them, and they'd still end up in poverty.  

Is poverty and human suffering bad?  Yes.  Is there anything we can do about it?  Not that I'm aware of.  Rather than indulging our emotions, we should stop throwing good money after bad until we have a viable plan.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites