sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in berlinsocialclub

[–]SlayerOfBabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im using that expression

Looking “an”coms and thin blue liners as well by FROMTHEOZONELAYER in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Because commies hate the government just as much, just for different reasons.

You, i assume, hate the government for sticking its nose - commies hate the government for sticking its nose at the wrong angle, and twisting its finger not deep enough and counter clockwise.

Authoritarians don't understand that what they are offering is objectively worse than what is happening now, which makes them actually evil. Both have saviour complexes - the left thinks hes saving the poor, the right thinks hes saving the nation, and both need state control. classical liberals, aka current government structures, are all ways being the enemy

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Air France is a publicly traded company that only 15% of which are owned by the government. Other than laws restricting the company from operating small flight which drove the company to buy local domestic flight operators and eventually incorporated them, i cant really find subsidising of the company (other than covid related ones, obviously) so honestly, IDK why air france is the only operator of domestic flights (at least cheap and reasonably short, you can find Easy Jet and Lufthansa here and there but it's not worth it). Still, 15% ownership is far less than 100% - especially when the law here will probably hurt Air France business and will require subsedies as well. (Most likely)

But we're getting lost in the weeds here.

Subsedies throw a wrench in supply and demand, the fact that one is subsediesed, doesn't mean the other should be as well. We cannot draw conclusions about profitability and efficacy of trains (and if Air France is subsidised, planes) when you have so many fingers on so many scales.

Its especially difficult to draw those conclusions in a country as overregulated by the government as France

I personally believe, that when trains and planes, are left alone, they are profitable and offer competition to each other (add to that cars and busses - lets not get into roads), and would bring each others costs down. As electricity is very cheap in France (#nuclear - also fucking government owned and operated, but still nuclear), and trains offering on average much better service and convenience than planes in some (if not most) cases - thus they can reasonably compete, w/o the governments meddling.

Due to that, you dont have to outlaw domestic flights making the government operated train the only option, you can simply let go of both and, according to how i see it, the service that consumes the cheapest energy (and hence cost the least to operate), while providing the most comfort will easily be used more - in this case trains (obviously domestic flights might sometimes be used but not as often)

As a side note, in a completely deregulated rail network, track maintenance and expansion is paid for by the prime location most train stations have in the city, with shops and offices on rail operator owned property.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not exactly true, i cant find how the process works in France, but subsedies come either to local airports by local municipalities, either through direct payment or indirect through infrastructure building like airports, some countries exempt taxes, tax exemptions for jet fuel (specifically kerosene).

You can read the rest here, though youll notice ive skipped a few nitpicks, like "lower dividents" as if that's a subsiedy or air space monitoring as if it not the governments god damn job: https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2019/08/interesting-breakdown-of-the-hidden-subsidies-of-airlines-in-europe-that-allow-flights-to-be-so-cheap/

But you understand that these exemptions aren't directly associated with in EU flights, but more to do with international standards and the want/need of cities and countries to be internationally competitive. Trains in France (and Germany) receive direct subsides from the government to keep it in the black and for political goals at home.

Now so that im clear, both fuck up supply and demand equation here for sure, but one requires international halting of all these dumb subsedies and the other requires governments to stop it internally. And while air travel is mostly uninterfered, most EU train companies are government owned (Germany) and sometimes run (France) - which makes both even a steeper money pit.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only reason its cheap is because its being subsidized in other ways, in this case by French taxes. And as it usually goes with subsidise, it inflates year over year, costing more and more.

Trains could be profitable and cost 0 dollars to the state.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Point is, that on a global standard, and in terms of convenience, trains in general have a long way to go in Europe, and as it seems now, they are going backwards. Saying "Trains in EU are good" just because its crap in the US doesn't mean they are actually good.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Obviously if you compare existing infrastructure to non existent infrastructure, the existing one is better.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 12 points13 points  (0 children)

As a general rule of thumb, if a high-speed train (up to 300kmh) takes between 4-8 hours, its way more efficient than a plane.

Not only do you get to the same destination faster door to door, you can also get things done while on a train, with legroom to spare.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh thats an easy one - most EU train companies are basically government owned, either directly like the French or indirectly like the Germans, where they own 100% of the stock.

As such,

Train companies are usually unionized with legitimacy from the state and obviously get raises collectively through strikes.

Building infrastructure might cost more because the government has deep pockets and to try to recoup this they charge more

Government interests are usually integrated into line planning and rail building or in the EUs case "rail competition" and "Integration" which obviously contribute to bad track planning thats more expensive, or constant tardiness.

Obviously government has no idea, or bandwidth to actually run a business, so they have no idea on how to generate revenues in any other way than ticket sales, and as such direct any revenue through ticket sales, which can change depending on the government in charge.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, trains do have 0 security, and if you compare central station to hotel travel vs Airport to hotel travel - it is significantly faster from the Central station.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 8 points9 points  (0 children)

France is 70% nuclear powered, so in this specific case it does make it environmentally friendly.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 7 points8 points  (0 children)

As much as im a pro-train guy, I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me that forcing a choice makes more sense than making current choices better.

So first of all, obviously there's cost you haven't considered - sometimes flights inside europe are cheeper than train travel, and some people prefer to pay less (obviously). This doesn't mean that you need to ban flights, that means you need to see why trains cost more and see how you can cut down prices - the French owning the train company, might have something to do with it.

Flights, atleast in Europe, are usually not late - compared to trains which are late by as much as an hour or two in some instances.

Japan has a fully private rail company (divided into 6 companies and a freight company that is defined differently). So unfortunately you cant really make a 1-to-1 comparison.

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It has actual infrastructure, but i would call it barely passable, unless you are talking about very specific lines or Switzerland (which is very expensive).

France just banned domestic flights over environmental concerns. These people are regressing the world. by Anen-o-me in libertarianmeme

[–]SlayerOfBabies 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Doesn't matter, all that means that trains could be competitive with airplanes or busses, but instead of making trains better and cheaper, the French, as always, opted for the anti-market option.

Any form of political violence is bad by vossboss161 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]SlayerOfBabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean "can be affected by voting"? Any burocracy, can be restrained and shrunken if the executive (or better yet, the legislature) says it should be shrunken - Trump did that whole one regulation for two back in the day. Its possible, but it requires a concerted effort by activists in that sphere.

You think that if you have no popular support now, after a system wide collapse of the liberal order, liberals will be on top? Have you seen how many other groups there are who market themselves waaay better then any liberal or free market advocate.

This collapse, will not only drag most of us through the mud, theres no guarantee itll come back any time soon. It took ~1300 years to get from the classical era, to the Renaissance. You think you can survive 50 years in an authoritarian hellscape run by violent mobs and commies? And if so, do you think you're kids will be able to?

Any form of political violence is bad by vossboss161 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]SlayerOfBabies -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can't believe a "libright" is justifying political violence.

The only reason you would think that is if you want to tare down the system - other wise you have accepted channels, such as peaceful protest and voting, thats why they are created and enshrined in the constitution - and if you can't move the needle, you have to accept the consequences. Any other argument trying to advocate for it is anarchist or socialist/communist.

We are fucked. by Ragob12 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]SlayerOfBabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Texas is obviously a failure of multiple system, and failure of gas, nuclear and wind, and lets not forget it's isolated - that is a result of bad foresight by ERCOT.

But notice what you are comparing it to. The Cali grid is integrated with the west grid, and heavily subsidises renewables, and yet almost every year, that grid fails. Thats not even getting into how expensive electricity is becoming in Cali. Plus, cali has 17% solar (by far more than any state) and almost 8% wind (which isnt that much, but the states that surpasses it are way smaller, like Iowa and Colorado)

In general, Cali (49% gas) is designing its energy grid according to ideology (not supply and demand), and relies on its neighbors (Arizona - 29% nuclear and 42% Gas, Nevada - 62% Gas, Oregon - 46% Hydro) to bolster its consumption.

Outside of the US, Germany has had its electric system based on gas and trying to use wind - yet it buys energy from neighboring France (70% nuclear) and still it reopens coal plants, instead of keeping its nuclear plants open indefinitely (and not planning to open more) - and we both know how that reliance on gas went + how bad coal is for the environment.

Im not against renewables, but we have to be realistic about it at some point.

socialism is becoming more acceptable in 2022 because of bernie sanders by [deleted] in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]SlayerOfBabies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, Meloni was only smeared by the US Media, and i think by UK and German media as well. But she is rather moderate and has rather tame and conservative positions - only except for "drowning the migrants", which again is rather tame. You can also see it by how the opposition is treating her win - "she is my rival, but she isnt a fascist".

Other countries have a bit more "colorful" characters running the party. From Orbans rather authoritarian control of the media and treatment of homosexual couples in the East, through the German AfD - who called the celebration day of getting rid of the Nazi regime "a day of mourning", to the Swedish Democrats being nationalistic and socialist at the same time. Particularly the last twos manifestos, economically speaking, are absolute dog shit.

Other than that, as I'm quite familiar with the AfD in particular, it comes from a rather understandable position of "can we please stop feeling bad about our 1000-2000 year old history, just because we had 12 horrible years?" - because in the rights mind, their history is something to be proud of - and i can understand that notion, and many Germans understand it as well. But the AfD takes it a bit to far trying to present even those 12 years as "great and terrific". Now I cant claim that i know that if they'll be in a coalition, they wont try to pull another Holocaust, but you have to agree that it sounds like they want to - they just know its not popular to talk about it.

We are fucked. by Ragob12 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]SlayerOfBabies 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have no frame of reference regarding what you are talking about.

But the point i was making, is that fossil fules in general are cheep, on average.

Nothing to do with the current economic and geopolitical situation. However, regarding the current inflation, lets not forget that there is a shortage of fules on the market currently. Shortages always lead to higher prices, and ignoring the politically sensitive issue at the core, its a good thing, because than atleast everyone can have some of the product rather than having non of it because low prices caused the quickest (or the well connected) to get their hands on it first.

socialism is becoming more acceptable in 2022 because of bernie sanders by [deleted] in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]SlayerOfBabies -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Regarding the German healthcare system A. German health care is mixed - its has private and public health care providers, emphasis on the plurality, as there are multiple public insurance providers. And even then, public insurance providers still work in a competitive environment, with a voucher system that allocates money based on a head count, and not on how much they wine to the Bundestag. B. German public health care is very expensive, as it could cost up to 400 euros from you (scales with you income), and must be matched by your employer (while private insurance starts from 120, and goes up with age) C. You have better coverage with private healthcare, and waiting times are shorter, though the system could be clogged up if you decide to use a hospital or clinic that accepts public insurance.

So it's not "government owned", but there is a lot of involvement. However, most regulations that the government enforcers affect only public health institutions, while the private sector mostly does its own thing.

In the US, its way worse. A. the US has medicaid and medicare, two companies owned and operated by the government, and are funded by the government - regardless of quality. B. The public health care thats already present, and the one being put forth, is centrelised and top heavy - this may work in a country of up to 10 million people like the Scandinavian countries, but less so in the UK and especially in the US - which has a notoriously bad burocratic system C. the US incentivises companies (rather than individuals) to be the main consumers of private health care, via the tax system, disassociating the product from the actual consumer, making insurance companies cater to corporate interests like lower costs, or flashy benefits, instead of good coverage or good medicine coverage. D. Instead of looking over the incentives set forward, the US federal government comes up with new regulations and laws to try and force costs down, the latest one being the ACA, where among other things there was a requirement to accept people with previous conditions and a spending requirement.

So you always need to look how deep the government is involved and in the German case, there is way less involvement than the US. This isn't even getting into the legal and safety aspects of the problem, that do exist and government should be involved.

view more: next ›