Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
Wouldn't the US working in ever deeper cooperation with both China and the EU be better for business? Billionaires move pretty easily between all three anyway.
By all appearances they've never fully committed with China because of the ideological gap, and are cutting out the EU now do to new, emerging ideological differences.
Lots of US and EU billionaires are working in deep cooperation with China. Tesla's, Apple's, NVIDIA's (until they got cut off recently), Ford's, VW's, and many many others. Heck, Taiwan's billionaires are all-in with China. There is however an intra-class competition for profits. If Elon was able to buy up all the major American and Chinese companies and collect profits from them, he would. Their current owners wouldn't like that. My claim is that this is the major driver behind what sometimes appears as ideological or geographical misalignment. Depending on who's billionaire political reps get in power, there's a "shift in ideology" which serves to legitimize the state promoting that billionaire's interests.
"EU is too far left. It's overregulating AI and not paying its fair share for NATO" - an ideologically structured message that translates to Big Tech and the American MIC currently own this government. They want access to the EU market for cloud services and they want the EU to buy more weapons. If you pay close attention you could even catch how the ideological disagreements change depending on the state of negotiations.
At the same time this class works to reduce the share of profits labour gets among other class war fights anywhere they operate since that's a common interest. Another common interest is not paying taxes. Or offloading negative externalities on the working class.
I recall recently when the EU decided to impose tariffs on Chinese EVs, VW started lobbying against the tariffs. I was initially baffled. VW said that the tariffs, protecting EU workers, many of which VW workers, would hurt VW's bottom line because of expected losses in China, due to likely counter-tariffs. Think about that. There's no Western values VW cares about. They're ready to throw out meausres that would save their European factories in order to keep their Chinese factories running and selling product. They act internationally and prioritize cooperation with whichever jurisdicrion yields the highest profits. In this case cooperating with China and their Chinese competitors.
This is why leftists and unionists say that labour organization has to work internationally to be truly effective. Because the owner class cooperates across borders.
For me, this theory of the world has given me explanations with fewer contradictions and significantly better predictions. That's a sign of a good theory and I'm sticking with it until it breaks. 😊
See, that just seems like "it's ideology, but also billionaires are there". European businesses don't want tariffs, but there's still European tariffs. The simplest explanation would just be that it wasn't their call.
It feels like you're starting with your conclusion and then building a story about it to end at whichever facts are appropriate for the instance. It'd be more convincing if you could put it in a form agnostic of where and when it's being applied. Like, when do billionaires want tariffs, and when don't they? Then, does it actually predict policy decision?
It's an essay format, not a deductive argument so the thesis is stated, then it's given support. Not saying you should be convinced, just explaining why it seems like this. It's also a light year away from an exhaustive analysis. I can't do that here and now. It takes books to do this.
To this point, I'll restate that there is competition for profit (not in a single market but profit making overall) and therefore state control between billionaires since state control modulates profits. What tariffs are good for some are bad for others. E.g. lumber tariffs are great for the lumber industry billionaires but bad for the construction ones due to increased cost of lumber. They both compete for making profit because if say lumber makes a lot more than construction for a while, they could buy construction. Cross-industry consolidation happens all the time. So when a billionaire doesn't want tariffs but there are tariffs anyway - then it probably wasn't their call. Instead it's either the call of another, or an uninfluenced politician. I think the latter is an endangered species given how much billionaires spend on lobbying and I don't think it's a more complicated explanation. In fact given how capital-intensive political campaigns are, the existence of an uninfluenced politician that rose to a position of power where they got to set industry tariffs might be more complex. Obviously there are regional differences, e.g. US vs Canada vs EU. I think the tendencies are the same but the degree is different at any point in time.
To be clear I am not excluding ideology entirely, I think the owner class is a much bigger driver, including significantly driving the ideology of the day at a given place and time.
E: In the hypothetical where the tariff-profiting lumber billionaire buys construction, their attitude towards tatiffs may change depending on how the profit maximization formula works now that they own both lumber and construction. It may turn out that getting rid of the lumber tariffs yields higher profits overall, in which case that billionaire and the politicians who represent them would become anti-tariff.
I will point out that in Canada, there's not much money in politics. We don't have a Citizens United equivalent. Pretty sure European countries are more like us, although each one has a distinct system.
Alright, I guess I've delivered as much rebuttal as is appropriate, then.
You know, too much length on each analysis itself actually reduces strength, in my experience. If one's idea is that complicated, they need to put it in a modular, structured form (so not prose), or are guaranteed to have made logical errors somewhere inside.