In the 1980s, EU money was flowing to Spain, Portugal and Greece. And people complained about that too.
But the result is inarguably positive. Those countries had only recently become democracies after decades of military dictatorships or otherwise unstable third-world style governments. Today they're the most dynamic economies in the EU in many respects, and their democracies are well established and functioning.
The EU doesn't get nearly enough credit for how it transformed the continent. People have forgotten how nearly all European countries were in a very bad shape after WWII. Fascists had remained in power in Spain and Portugal. Soviets were orchestrating communist takeovers in countries like Italy. It's a small miracle that the liberal democratic economic order won so quickly and decisively.
>Today they're the most dynamic economies in the EU in many respects
In what sense are they "dynamic economies"? Their GDP per capita has barely increased at all over the past two decades, they're mired in debt, and haven't produced a single new company that's significant on the global stage.
Spain is currently the fastest growing state in Europe, is the largest source new job creation in Europe, and is currently benefiting from its large scale investments in renewables and grid infrastructure sheltering it from the worst of the Iran war.
Spain is often given as an example of a failed economy ruined by socialists.
GDP per capita is basically flat over the last 2 decades, $30K.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/esp/spa...
vs Poland that tripled or let's say Israel that had the same GDP as Spain and now has double.
What happened in Spain is that they joined the Euro currency, and this caused a massive boom from 2001-2007 where GDP more than doubled in only 6 years. This was mostly fueled by capital transfers from other Eurozone countries, seeking higher returns than in their home country.
Of course this rate of growth proved unsustainable: in 2008 the (Spanish) real estate bubble burst and this caused bank bail outs, massive unemployment (rates around 25%), and put an end to GDP growth for many years, exacerbated by the fact that Spain did no longer have its own currency to devalue in order to regain international competitiveness.
At the time the bubble burst, government debt in Spain was at a bit more than 40% GDP, with a budget surplus, far lower than for example the "responsible" Germany at more than 60%.
Now what does any of that have to do with "socialists"? If anything, it's a cautionary tale about badly designed currency zones and financial markets misallocating capital.
I think this is the hidden reason why the American alt-right/far-right/MAGA/techbro types hate the EU with so much apoplectic rage. For all its problems, big-picture-like it actually works to gradually coalesce a huge rich continent with a bigger population than the US into something increasingly more coherent, and if it continues to work it will mean that the Western world now has two heavyweight leaders, not one. For people who tend to view the world as a giant zero-sum dominance competition, this is of course a big threat. One more big player = one more competitor.
(The techbros hate it for a different, if related, reason - they aren't nearly as successful at capturing regulators, astroturfing and controlling discourse, and otherwise taking charge of that second entity as they are with the hapless US federal government).
> (The techbros hate it for a different, if related, reason - they aren't nearly as successful at capturing regulators, astroturfing and controlling discourse, and otherwise taking charge of that second entity as they are with the hapless US federal government).
I'd propose a different reason - the techbros disassociate with the EU because if someone want to work in tech that means getting fairly intimate with US culture, companies and markets. There is a reason this conversation is happening on a message board backed by a US company (moderated to US standards, I might add) - the Europeans don't have the ecosystem to sustain something similar.
If Europe were capable of building the ecosystems needed to fielding a large number of competent tech companies then techbros would start turning up there too.
Don’t make shit up about people you don’t understand.
>American alt-right/far-right/MAGA/techbro
Bucketing these all together doesn’t even make sense. A “techbro” has completely different reasons to dislike the EU (regulatory regime unfriendly to tech startups) than some MAGA focused on US competitors.
As someone from the tech industry, I’m disappointed in the EU as it falls further and further behind on innovation. I love the EU though and frequently visit it (which is not something a MAGA would do).
All non-monarchies in Europe are republics too. It’s by far the most common type of democracy. It’s unclear to me why some Americans insist on making a distinction that doesn’t exist.
That is incorrect for Portugal. We didn't took part on the WWII and came out with a rich country that kept growing on double-digits. Eventually it was attacked simultaneouly by the US/Russia proxies for 10 years until 1974.
It was after that US/Russia sponsored this communist takeover of our country that the new puppet governments have thrown the natives into extreme misery until someone from the EU decided to reduce the levels of corruption and misery. We simply swapped one master for another and hasn't been good for our land.
So please don't compare our country to whatever "solutions" brought by the same entities who caused our problems in the first place. We needed almost 50 years to remove socialism from this country and reduce the venezuelan/cuban style poverty forced upon us.
I’m not interested in debating the anti-Islam diatribe. If your lived experience is that “bearded men and veiled women” have destroyed the halcyon paradise of your childhood, then that’s fundamentally a nostalgia-based emotional argument.
But I’ll clarify that I wrote that Spain, Portugal and Greece specifically have become dynamic economies in the context of the EU. Spain has grown at a consistent 3% for a decade. Of course the far-right argues that it’s the wrong kind of growth because it’s fueled by immigration (backwards-looking political movements prefer zero growth and a shrinking population if it means less people of the color they don’t like).
The bearded men have increased the crime rates in Spain, France, UK, Germany, Sweden etc. This is crystal clear if you look up statistics. Just in the last week there was a Aloha Snack Bar stabbing in Barcelona. Poland has low crime rates specifically because they have strict border controls.
You are free to personally visit Brussels to see what a shit hole it is.
Exactly how do you believe their borders are more strict given that they’re in Schengen? And how is the EU to blame for Belgium’s immigration policies but not Poland’s?
That’s not what I said. I said there are more important things to increase the wellbeing of the citizens of a country than democracy. In other words, a country can use democracy as a tool to destroy itself.
> “a brilliant stroke of genius the likes of which the world is not likely to see again. If that one guy hadn't been born, we would have gone thousands of years with no method”
But that’s not the criteria for granting a patent. It doesn’t have to be a stroke of genius. It can be something that many people could invent at the particular moment of the filing (as evidenced by many cases of near-simultaneous patent filings, like Daimler and Benz competing for the ICE in the 1880s). It just needs to be demonstrably novel.
I’m not saying tabbing back and forth through dialog fields qualifies, but then again it’s hard to place oneself in 1980.
The arrow keys, and enter, are the obvious ones to use, but you have to move off of home row to hit them. That's the "non-obvious" bit of using the tab key to navigate fields. Back when that level of usability was important.
Reminds me of this bit in Joseph Conrad’s “The Secret Agent” about London’s topographical mysteries:
”With a turn to the left Mr Verloc pursued his way along a narrow street by the side of a yellow wall which, for some inscrutable reason, had No. I Chesham Square written on it in black letters. Chesham Square was at least sixty yards away, and Mr Verloc, cosmopolitan enough not to be deceived by London’s topographical mysteries, held on steadily, without a sign of surprise or indignation. At last, with business-like persistency, he reached the Square, and made diagonally for the number 10. This belonged to an imposing carriage gate in a high, clean wall between two houses, of which one rationally enough bore the number 9 and the other was numbered 37; but the fact that this last belonged to Porthill Street, a street well known in the neighbourhood, was proclaimed by an inscription placed above the ground-floor windows by whatever highly efficient authority is charged with the duty of keeping track of London’s strayed houses. Why powers are not asked of Parliament (a short Act would do) for compelling those edifices to return where they belong is one of the mysteries of municipal administration. Mr Verloc did not trouble his head about it, his mission in life being the protection of the social mechanism, not its perfectionment or even its criticism.”
They are just ordinary gambling unless you allow insider trading and manipulation, because that’s the only way the market can acquire and represent novel useful information.
But if you allow those things, you run into a host of well-documented problems which are the reason why those things are forbidden in other markets.
As it stands, prediction markets seem like a tech-aligned rebranding of age-old rigged gambling products.
> They are just ordinary gambling unless you allow insider trading and manipulation, because that’s the only way the market can acquire and represent novel useful information.
Representing only public information without agenda is useful in itself. Words are cheap, and which words you get to see and which words you don't get to see is according to some non-truth incentive. Prediction markets say "you get to make money if you know what the truth actually is". Media says "you get to make money if you entertain people".
It's unfortunate there's also significant negative side effects to financialized prediction markets. I'm more favorable to non-financial prediction markets like Manifold, which say "you get to have social status if you know what the truth is". Seems as though that's the right balance, although you could see how such non-financial prediction markets can be more easily defeated by dedicated non-truth actors if it became prominent in the public conversation.
The original point is to use crowd wisdom. Crowds seem better than single individuals to predict outcomes of certain types of events.
I think this is visible in sports betting markets. Unless all games are rigged, games outcomes are fairly random events, and betting markets are pretty good at assessing the probabilities of a team winning. Same thing happens in finance. Option markets are really good at assessing the probabilities of asset movements.
The thing though is that these markets are only good in predicting recurring events like game results or financial asset movements. They are good _overall_, as in, if you take 100,000 sport games, the bettings odds are going to be overall in line with what actually happens.
Hence some people deduced that crowds with skin in the game were wise in predicting random stuff. And what happened then is that some of them thought this kind of predictive power could apply to any kind of event, and then predictive markets were created, with the idea that crowds could magically come up with odds for anything, and that would be fairly correct. But what works for recurring events don't hold for single events like Maduro's capture or the end of the Iran war. So the odds in these market is only the result of influence and insider information.
The result is that the odds are generally completely off, unless there is insider information. That's kind of what happened in the 2008 financial crisis. The bets there were on loans defaulting. These events are rare enough that it's impossible to assess their probability easily. And so banks relied on rating agencies (influence), to price the odds of these events happening. Rating agencies were wrong on a lot of these bets, meaning all the bets were placed at very very wrong prices, resulting in the crisis we saw.
The weird outcome of it all, is that those prediction markets have become insider information detectors. That's how they caught the guy. Whoever is winning big on these markets is necessarily cheating.
But I guess the main takeaway for me is that society is in such a state that a lot of people actually bet big on these things. Probably a combination of being fed dreams of fortune since childhood and the american dream not delivering. It's all very sad.
The idea is that people will lie lie lie since words are free, but make real decisions when it’s their money at stake.
It’s not that different from the general concept of pricing. People will swear they want to buy American, support small business etc. but when it’s time for new jeans they go to Walmart and buy the pair on sale.
There would still be a point to encourage better predictions from the public information through better modeling. We aren't always using the optimal models to predict. One example: LLMs are "just" predicting the next token given the public information of the tokens that came before, but they work considerably better at making that prediction than the models that came before them.
In theory no, because it provides financial incentive to perform a comprehensive analysis of available data or conduct thorough investigations. In practice, yep.
Why does the market need to acquire and represent novel/useful information?
It's ordinary gambling, but more in line with poker than with roulette. Theoretically there could be some skill that comes into play in predicting it, but there is also a large element of luck. This is just an entertainment product.
One of the greatest Silicon Valley tropes is when boring software guys get rich, lose the plot, and start reinventing physics from first principles because they think the universe is like computer science.
The solace of made-up physics is there for every mediocre dude, from Uber founder Travis Kalanick down to any random guy who made $10M as the CTO of a third-rate video conferencing app and immediately broke up with his girlfriend.
Oddly specific. The interactions and variables in biology and physics create way more permutations than many (perhaps all?) people can wrap their heads around but that doesn't mean the possibility of reasoning from first principles doesn't exist. There are very well defined pathways in both medicine and physics. The ones we haven't discovered are most likely much more complex and may contain recursive loops that make tradeoffs inevitable. Or not. The rapid improvement in pattern recognition and processing leads me to believe we are in for a wild time over the next 10 years with a ton of breakthroughs in both physics and medicine.
Anthropic today feels like 1990s Microsoft, when mere rumors that MS might enter yet another software vertical (publishing, CAD, 3D etc.) were enough to destroy the stock prices of current market leaders.
At the same time you have OpenAI's "no more sidequests". These labs can only expand so far horizontally. I don't believe they will go very far beyond code generation and its adjacenies.
You’re sanewashing Trump’s absolutely bonkers behavior by focusing on the critics.
The man can barely form a sentence and posts on social media on the mental and writing level of a ten-year-old. Americans are choosing to accept this from their leader. He is 80 years old and obviously very unwell. Terminal-stage Soviet Union had more competent leadership.
> You’re sanewashing Trump’s absolutely bonkers behavior by focusing on the critics.
I think it's legitimate to focus on his critics, because they've been oddly ineffective. His 2024 victory should never have happened, but it did thanks to the incompetence of his opponents and critics.
Their "losing the plot" may be an important part of that: he says crazy things, but that goads his critics into also saying crazy/wrong things, which probably helps neutralize whatever advantage they'd have. Sure, partisans wouldn't be affected because hate him, but they don't really matter, because they hate him.
> The man can barely form a sentence and posts on social media on the mental and writing level of a ten-year-old. Americans are choosing to accept this from their leader. He is 80 years old and obviously very unwell. Terminal-stage Soviet Union had more competent leadership.
I don't think that line of attack works. It may be true, but many of his opponents hate him and would say that regardless of if it were true or not.
In the case of X, the business owner is aggressively pushing his political views on users by heavy-handed methods like prioritizing his own posts in algorithmic feeds and overriding the context of his AI bot to parrot his pet ideas.
If you went to a restaurant and it had Confederate flags and pro-slavery memorabilia on the walls, would you think: “Well, that’s just their political view, I don’t have to share it to eat here?”
> pushing his political views on users by heavy-handed methods like prioritizing his own posts in algorithmic feeds
He's also using his fame and fortune to much more directly fund and promote political change in places like the UK. It goes beyond this one service, but moving away from this service weakens his position more broadly as well.
I will always remember fondly the story of "Little Black Sambo". I was at that point in childhood where judgement was not yet developed but I could appreciate a good story, especially if fantastic things happened. After all, I was a little boy like Sambo.
So I feared for Sambo when he encountered the tigers. I was elated when he eluded them by first racing around the tree and then climbing it. I was mystified how tigers running round and round a tree could turn to butter (but set that aside so I could continue the story and reduce my fearful suspense). I was relieved to see that Sambo was safe. I identified with Sambo (although I am neither black or brown).
Hoorah for the fantastic tales from many lands that filled my childhood and those of my brothers and sisters with wonder!
I am still a child when I read fairy tales and fables.
Same. From a child’s perspective, that’s what the story was.
But walking into a Sambo’s meant being immersed in the visual world, which was loaded with racist tropes. Sambo was depicted as a foolish child with dark skin and either a giant grin or eye-popping fear.
Again, I was a kid in the 1970s and I knew it was racist.
> the business owner is aggressively pushing his political views
That's always been the case with Twitter - Dorsey was just as bad, but just with a different set of political views. (Views that, I presume, the EFF is aligned with).
> If you went to a restaurant and it had Confederate flags and pro-slavery memorabilia on the walls, would you think: “Well, that’s just their political view, I don’t have to share it to eat here?”
Even more so if it's not just a personal decision to get a bite to eat, but one taken by a lobbying organization about where to host events promoting speech rights, and the new owner is co-opting their language of speech rights to justify his policy of putting Conferedate flags behind the bar (whilst actually barring more people he doesn't like than the old owner as well as scaring off most of the people who supported the organizations mission and pasting KKK event ads flyers over the top of theirs). At some point continuing to hang out there and host events for ever diminishing numbers of people who mostly seem to reinterpret everything you say as screeds against 'woke' ceases to be a "politically neutral, pro-free speech" stance.
Last year my sister visited me and she wanted to go a nearby karaoke bar because she loves karaoke. I'd never been to this place before.
We get there and it's all white people, and there was an older gentleman singing a country song. We take a seat at an empty booth underneath a confederate flag and a sign about the 2A. We joke about how rednecky the vibes were.
For context, my wife is Chinese and wears a hijab, my sister and I are southeast Asian, and my sister's boyfriend is Indian. Couldn't have a more non-white group if you'd asked for one.
Despite feeling deeply out of place, but not unsafe, we got some songs in, ate some meh bar food, and had an all-around good time. My sister's boyfriend chatted with some people in the smoke room. Everyone was friendly.
A lot of people really don't care about the politics of the establishments they visit. They just want to have a good time.
"If you went to a restaurant and it had Confederate flags and pro-slavery memorabilia on the walls, would you think: “Well, that’s just their political view, I don’t have to share it to eat here?”
Yes? If you go to the southern part of the United States, there are many restaurants with Confederate memorabilia and Confederate flags on the back of truck windows.
Some trucks even have hairy testicles hanging off the hitch haha!
If people get gender-affirming care for their trucks, that's their own business, but no, no I will not eat in a place with a Confederate flag.
I find the idea of venerating an ideology that held that it was ok to hold human beings in bondage from the moment of their birth to their death to be abhorrent.
But the result is inarguably positive. Those countries had only recently become democracies after decades of military dictatorships or otherwise unstable third-world style governments. Today they're the most dynamic economies in the EU in many respects, and their democracies are well established and functioning.
The EU doesn't get nearly enough credit for how it transformed the continent. People have forgotten how nearly all European countries were in a very bad shape after WWII. Fascists had remained in power in Spain and Portugal. Soviets were orchestrating communist takeovers in countries like Italy. It's a small miracle that the liberal democratic economic order won so quickly and decisively.
reply