CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14096
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:28 pm
 


Quote:
On Wednesday, S&P Global Inc. dropped a bombshell on the sovereign-credit ratings community.

Sounding the alarm over the rise of populism in Europe and the U.S., the credit agency said key historic drivers of the creditworthiness of advanced economies over their emerging-market counterparts — the strength of institutions and quality of policy making — can no longer be taken for granted.

That represents a potential game-changer for a slew of developed markets, which have historically enjoyed uplifts in their ratings simply by virtue of the strength of their political architecture relative to emerging markets.

“We believe it may no longer be possible to separate advanced economies from emerging markets by describing their political systems as displaying superior levels of stability, effectiveness, and predictability of policy making and political institutions,” wrote Moritz Kraemer, chief sovereign ratings officer, in a 2017 outlook report entitled “A Spotlight On Rising Political Risks.”

In other words, S&P are gearing up for the prospect of regressive convergence: advanced economies becoming more like emerging markets with weaker political systems.

“We believe that political and institutional uncertainties are on the rise in so-called emerging and advanced economies alike,” Kraemer added.

“This represents a big shift in views,” says Richard Segal, emerging market analyst at Manulife Asset Management Ltd. “One of the main arguments for higher ratings for developed markets relative to emerging markets has been institutional quality. If that differential — the quality of institutions between the two groups — is narrowing, so might the differential between their credit ratings.”

The report cites, among other things, the policy uncertainty associated with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s victory (which clouds the credit outlook for the AA+ rated economy) and the U.K., where the firm says a hard Brexit outcome now looks more likely, threatening full-scale access to export goods and services in the world’s largest-trading bloc. It also mentions political risks in a clutch of emerging markets from South Africa to Turkey to Brazil, as well as the euro-area — the Italian referendum and the upcoming French presidential elections come to mind — that may destabilize sovereign ratings across the region.....


http://business.financialpost.com/inves ... picks=true

In other words, market models for countries overrun by Alt-right reactionaries and their ignorant, unqualified know-nothing leaders are starting to resemble the models used for underdeveloped countries.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13643
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:41 pm
 


Strange. Nowhere in your article did I see the Name Trump or the term right wing to describe the countries dealing with political stability issues and for the record the term populism isn't confined to the right wing.

Quote:
Academic definitions[edit]
Historically, academic definitions of populism vary, and people have often used the term in loose and inconsistent ways to reference appeals to "the people," demagogy, and "catch-all" politics. The term has also been used as a label for new parties whose classifications are unclear. A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them, differing in that regard from those identified as conservatives or socialists.[3]

In recent years, academic scholars have produced definitions that facilitate populist identification and comparison. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".[4] Rather than viewing populism in terms of specific social bases, economic programs, issues, or electorates as discussions of right-wing populism have tended to do,[5] — this type of definition is in line with the approaches of scholars such as Ernesto Laclau,[6] Pierre-Andre Taguieff,[7] Yves Meny and Yves Surel,[8] who have all sought to focus on populism per se, rather than treating it simply as an appendage of other ideologies.

In the United States, populism has generally been associated with the left, whereas in European countries, populism is more associated with the right. In both, the central tenet of populism—that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people—means it can sit easily with ideologies of both right and left. However, while leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on either the left or the right of the political spectrum, there are also many populists who reject such classifications and claim not to be "left wing," "centrist" or "right wing."[9][10][11]

Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"[2] In the United States populist movements have high prestige in the history books, for example, farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement that were often called populist, by supporters and outsiders alike.[12]

Some scholars argue that populist organizing for empowerment represents the return of older "Aristotelian" politics of horizontal interactions among equals who are different, for the sake of public problem solving.[13][14] Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist[15] forms, as well as forms of politics that bring together groups and individuals of diverse partisan views.[16] The use of populist rhetoric in the United States has recently included references such as "the powerful trial lawyer lobby",[17][18] "the liberal elite", or "the Hollywood elite".[19] Examples of populist rhetoric on the other side of the political spectrum include the anti-corporate-greed views of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the theme of "Two Americas" in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Party campaign of John Edwards.

Populists are seen by some politicians as a largely democratic and positive force in society, while a wing of scholarship in political science contends that populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process. Margaret Canovan argues that both these polar views are faulty, and has defined two main branches of modern populism worldwide—agrarian and political—and mapped out seven disparate sub-categories:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

So given the academic definition of "populism" it could be applied just as easily to the left leaning Gov'ts around the world as the right leaning wing ones.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63744
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:59 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
In other words, market models for countries overrun by Alt-right reactionaries and their ignorant, unqualified know-nothing leaders are starting to resemble the models used for underdeveloped countries.


Perhaps we are reactionaries and if we are you're failing to note that we're reacting to years of being ruled by sneering, condescending, jacktards like yourself.

Oh, and the 'alt-right' thing? Is that how you're going to call us all niggers now? Because the rest of the stupid fucking names you assholes use don't work so you have to come up with a new epithet...as if it'll do anything but piss us off.

We don't fight by your rules anymore so maybe you might want to stop trying to win the last war with tactics that are proven to fail.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14096
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:10 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Strange. Nowhere in your article did I see the Name Trump or the term right wing to describe the countries dealing with political stability issues and for the record the term populism isn't confined to the right wing.

Quote:
Academic definitions[edit]
Historically, academic definitions of populism vary, and people have often used the term in loose and inconsistent ways to reference appeals to "the people," demagogy, and "catch-all" politics. The term has also been used as a label for new parties whose classifications are unclear. A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them, differing in that regard from those identified as conservatives or socialists.[3]

In recent years, academic scholars have produced definitions that facilitate populist identification and comparison. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".[4] Rather than viewing populism in terms of specific social bases, economic programs, issues, or electorates as discussions of right-wing populism have tended to do,[5] — this type of definition is in line with the approaches of scholars such as Ernesto Laclau,[6] Pierre-Andre Taguieff,[7] Yves Meny and Yves Surel,[8] who have all sought to focus on populism per se, rather than treating it simply as an appendage of other ideologies.

In the United States, populism has generally been associated with the left, whereas in European countries, populism is more associated with the right. In both, the central tenet of populism—that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people—means it can sit easily with ideologies of both right and left. However, while leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on either the left or the right of the political spectrum, there are also many populists who reject such classifications and claim not to be "left wing," "centrist" or "right wing."[9][10][11]

Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"[2] In the United States populist movements have high prestige in the history books, for example, farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement that were often called populist, by supporters and outsiders alike.[12]

Some scholars argue that populist organizing for empowerment represents the return of older "Aristotelian" politics of horizontal interactions among equals who are different, for the sake of public problem solving.[13][14] Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist[15] forms, as well as forms of politics that bring together groups and individuals of diverse partisan views.[16] The use of populist rhetoric in the United States has recently included references such as "the powerful trial lawyer lobby",[17][18] "the liberal elite", or "the Hollywood elite".[19] Examples of populist rhetoric on the other side of the political spectrum include the anti-corporate-greed views of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the theme of "Two Americas" in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Party campaign of John Edwards.

Populists are seen by some politicians as a largely democratic and positive force in society, while a wing of scholarship in political science contends that populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process. Margaret Canovan argues that both these polar views are faulty, and has defined two main branches of modern populism worldwide—agrarian and political—and mapped out seven disparate sub-categories:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

So given the academic definition of "populism" it could be applied just as easily to the left leaning Gov'ts around the world as the right leaning wing ones.


The article definitely mentions Trump and Brexit, even in my quote. Reread.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14096
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:17 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
In other words, market models for countries overrun by Alt-right reactionaries and their ignorant, unqualified know-nothing leaders are starting to resemble the models used for underdeveloped countries.


Perhaps we are reactionaries and if we are you're failing to note that we're reacting to years of being ruled by sneering, condescending, jacktards like yourself.

Oh, and the 'alt-right' thing? Is that how you're going to call us all niggers now? Because the rest of the stupid fucking names you assholes use don't work so you have to come up with a new epithet...as if it'll do anything but piss us off.

We don't fight by your rules anymore so maybe you might want to stop trying to win the last war with tactics that are proven to fail.


Hey man, Alt-right is the name YOU GUYS came up with for yourselves. I prefer "deplorables" , personally. Considering how many times you've posted that you proudly use the N word and that you will continue to do so, I have to admit I'm a little confused as to why youd be so upset about name calling.

Also wondering if you will clarify whether you include Reagan and the Bushes in that list of "sneering jacktards" whom you believe to have supposedly "ruled " you?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:42 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Strange. Nowhere in your article did I see the Name Trump or the term right wing to describe the countries dealing with political stability issues and for the record the term populism isn't confined to the right wing.


"Populism" is the new word the lefty fags are going to use to sneer and glower at
everyone who isn't supporting their globalist whoring one world corporate agenda.

Just keep triggering them, it's hilarious to watch the tears.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14096
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:19 pm
 


Lefties apparently support a "corporate agenda" now. Listen to this idiot. Does that mean Righties are suddenly labour union supporters now?

How do you brainwash yourself so easily?

Classy touch with the "fag" comment. Way to represent!


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63744
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:24 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Lefties apparently support a "corporate agenda" now.


I was going to post something to substantiate this but then I noted that you wrote this as a statement and not as a question so I'll simply agree with you for a change. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14096
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:37 pm
 


Obviously Sarcasm. Please post something that shows the left is pro corporate. Note that just because the Clintons did something doesn't mean "the left" supports it. Many on the left do not consider the Clintons to be lefties.

Also please clarify:

whether you think this is new or if the left has always been pro-corporate.

Whether the right now supports socialism, labour unions, environmentalism, and businesses regulations, since those are obviously anti-corporate


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13643
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:13 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Freakinoldguy wrote:
Strange. Nowhere in your article did I see the Name Trump or the term right wing to describe the countries dealing with political stability issues and for the record the term populism isn't confined to the right wing.

Quote:
Academic definitions[edit]
Historically, academic definitions of populism vary, and people have often used the term in loose and inconsistent ways to reference appeals to "the people," demagogy, and "catch-all" politics. The term has also been used as a label for new parties whose classifications are unclear. A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them, differing in that regard from those identified as conservatives or socialists.[3]

In recent years, academic scholars have produced definitions that facilitate populist identification and comparison. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".[4] Rather than viewing populism in terms of specific social bases, economic programs, issues, or electorates as discussions of right-wing populism have tended to do,[5] — this type of definition is in line with the approaches of scholars such as Ernesto Laclau,[6] Pierre-Andre Taguieff,[7] Yves Meny and Yves Surel,[8] who have all sought to focus on populism per se, rather than treating it simply as an appendage of other ideologies.

In the United States, populism has generally been associated with the left, whereas in European countries, populism is more associated with the right. In both, the central tenet of populism—that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people—means it can sit easily with ideologies of both right and left. However, while leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on either the left or the right of the political spectrum, there are also many populists who reject such classifications and claim not to be "left wing," "centrist" or "right wing."[9][10][11]

Cas Mudde says, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"[2] In the United States populist movements have high prestige in the history books, for example, farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement that were often called populist, by supporters and outsiders alike.[12]

Some scholars argue that populist organizing for empowerment represents the return of older "Aristotelian" politics of horizontal interactions among equals who are different, for the sake of public problem solving.[13][14] Populism has taken left-wing, right-wing, and even centrist[15] forms, as well as forms of politics that bring together groups and individuals of diverse partisan views.[16] The use of populist rhetoric in the United States has recently included references such as "the powerful trial lawyer lobby",[17][18] "the liberal elite", or "the Hollywood elite".[19] Examples of populist rhetoric on the other side of the political spectrum include the anti-corporate-greed views of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the theme of "Two Americas" in the 2004 Presidential Democratic Party campaign of John Edwards.

Populists are seen by some politicians as a largely democratic and positive force in society, while a wing of scholarship in political science contends that populist mass movements are irrational and introduce instability into the political process. Margaret Canovan argues that both these polar views are faulty, and has defined two main branches of modern populism worldwide—agrarian and political—and mapped out seven disparate sub-categories:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

So given the academic definition of "populism" it could be applied just as easily to the left leaning Gov'ts around the world as the right leaning wing ones.


The article definitely mentions Trump and Brexit, even in my quote. Reread.


My apologies since I didn't notice the name Trump in the last paragraph of your article and I'm glad that you outed the term Brexit as code for the alt-right.

But, all that aside I'll still stand by my statment about the left being just as much about populism as the right. Then, if you can refute that fact you're more than welcome to stick the "populism" label strictly on the alt-right but, until that happens it comes across as you trying to project your own opinions and conclusions on someone else's article.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63744
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:19 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Hey man, Alt-right is the name YOU GUYS came up with for yourselves.


No, it's a name that was created in 2008 to describe the fringes of the right. YOU GUYS are using it to smear ALL of us on the right by lumping us all in with people like the racist wing of the socialists...who are not right wingers at all.

BeaverFever wrote:
I prefer "deplorables" , personally. Considering how many times you've posted that you proudly use the N word and that you will continue to do so, I have to admit I'm a little confused as to why youd be so upset about name calling.


I do not 'proudly' use the word nigger. But I will insist on using it so long as black people persist in using it in public conversation and in popular music. I will NOT cooperate with those racists who would say that white people are not allowed to use the word that they use all day long. Funny that for the moment (at least) they're not yet offended when white people use the word 'motherfucker'. :lol:

BeaverFever wrote:
Also wondering if you will clarify whether you include Reagan and the Bushes in that list of "sneering jacktards" whom you believe to have supposedly "ruled " you?


"rules" =/= "ruled"


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14096
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:50 pm
 


Bart your own precious Breitbart disagrees with you on the origins of the term "Alt Right"


https://www.google.ca/amp/www.breitbart ... lient=says

And your logic on using the N word is laughable. SOME black people use the N word in various contexts, all of them considered as vulgar and as socially unacceptable saying the word motherfucker. But yet because SOME blacks do it you INSIST on collectively punishing ALL Blacks by calling anyone you feel like the N word regardless of whether that person uses the term themselves or not.

And you still haven't explained why you feel you have license to use whatever vulgar tems you want like c--nt but yet you expect everyone to walk on eggshells around you and not call you "Alt right" ? A name you invented for yourself?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14096
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:08 pm
 


Quote:
"rules" =/= "ruled"


Oh I see, you're just talking about Obama having the nerve to easily win 2 elections after Republicans destroyed the country and then the temerity to try and fulfil some of his campaign promises. How dare he!

Show me on the pictures where the bad man hurt you:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3139
PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:34 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Quote:
"rules" =/= "ruled"


Oh I see, you're just talking about Obama having the nerve to easily win 2 elections after Republicans destroyed the country and then the temerity to try and fulfil some of his campaign promises. How dare he!

Show me on the pictures where the bad man hurt you:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


This post is not an indictment nor a refuting of the former administration choices, as I think Bush was right on many things, quite wrong on others, in particular on the remedy for the problems. These are just the facts as they stand now.

The error in your argument is that this brand of Conservatism didn't win in this election, so when you attack Trump you are barking up the wrong tree. Trump is not a hardcore conservative, nor a liberal. Even Obama pegged him as someone who is not ideologically rigid. He is a businessman who is pragmatic. You may not like that he is putting America first and will eat Canadas lunch, but this isn't his fault that Canada doesn't want to evolve.

When you talk with disdain about the former years to Obama; the Bush years, you should have been rooting against Hillary. In many respects she embodied many of the Bush policies that you aren't so happy with. Worse though, she would have had to deal with the tug of war with the socialists and quasi-communists, anti free speech, anti-Americans who reside on the far left. She was the establishment. She would have done the same things and probably quickly once again doubled the debt.

Some like me judge people on a policy by policy basis, applying internally different weighted value based on the issue. So for instance, abortion might not be an important issue to you, but fiscal responsibility is. Or, major changes to trade deals might take precedence over environmental concerns, etc

One final note, as much as I liked Bill Clinton for his economic successes, he supported Chinas entry into the WTO. This may have been the worst decision for Americas National Security, and the rest of the world maintaining liberty as we know it. China is now extremely powerful, and unlike Russia in the 1980's, they aren't limited in their economic growth, much of it is being provided for by the West.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63744
PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:37 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Quote:
"rules" =/= "ruled"


Oh I see, you're just talking about Obama having the nerve to easily win 2 elections after Republicans destroyed the country and then the temerity to try and fulfil some of his campaign promises. How dare he!


Let me be clear; you're responding to something I didn't say and I will neither defend it nor answer to it as if I did.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.