Display:
(I wouldn't classify B as neolib. Closer to fascist in fact.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Murdoch is fundamentally the same story as Corruptioni. If we're calling Corruptioni a fascist, then we're calling much of the structural, institutional support for neoliberal policies fascist as well.

A case can be made, of course, and at any rate there's a sliding scale.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Murdoch uses his media empire to preach neoliberalism; while he has no government post. B doesn't -- and is not at all a consequent neolib in government.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 03:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you mean "consistent". This is one of the more confusing German/English differences - I was puzzled for a long time as to why the Germans were so concerned with consequences, until I realized that I didn't understand the German. The meanings are similar enough that one can confuse them for a long time. Did you learn German before English, or is the Hungarian word similar to the German?

Eventually/Eventuel is the other one that seems to confuse everybody.

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 04:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
NOW I am confused :-)

German has konsequent, Hungarian has konzekvens, both from the same Latin root, and the same meaning: to follow through on something, to be faithful to some principle. (Related, but not identical in meaning with Ger. konsistent resp. Hun. konzisztens.) I did not realise there is a difference in meaning with the English consequent -- and still don't know from your comment what the difference is :)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 04:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I see your point - I may have confused meaning with what is idiomatic. Somehow using "consistent" in this context feels right, while "consequent" says (at least to me) "German speaker!". Your argument seems to make logical sense, but the English language isn't always logical...
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 04:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Consequent (English version): As follows from. E.g. "consequent to the attack on Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany."

Konsequent (Germanic version): Consistent, in keeping with principles/established rules. E.g. "Alan Greenspan ist nicht konsequent in sein logik."

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 05:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(BTW, I started to learn German and English at the same time, but one immersed in the culture and among native speakers, the other in foreign language class.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 04:25:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Murdoch uses his media empire to preach neoliberalism

Fox News is also Murdoch. As are a couple of the British papers in the same genre as Bild-Zeitung.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 05:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. And? Don't those preach his neoliberal and arch-conservative views, too?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 05:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They do rather a lot more than that. A guy like Bill O'Reilly is often skirting the ragged edges of most European laws on hate speech. And he's an anchor on a continent-wide cable TV station.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 06:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep, O'Reilly is a fascist.

IOW, you want to prove that Murdoch is a fascist, too? Well, I have nothing against that; but there is little neoliberal ideology in Berlusconi, is my original point.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 07:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's true. But I didn't have a link to any of Murdoch's escapades that was both snappy and work-safe.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 11th, 2009 at 07:11:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What distinguishes B from Mussolini is the scope of his actions. M professed a certain ideology of the state while B has no abiding concept of the state. B's actions are motivated exclusively by his urge to consolidate and extend his power while most politicians, M included, perceive(d) power as a means to put into act a program (Machiavelli dixit).

The supreme court judge emeritus Gustavo Zagrabelsky described berlusconismo in this way as Nihilism, the drive for power in itself.

As for B's opportunistic remark that he is a liberalist, he has been derided by European liberals- Poettering, as I recall some years ago. B built his power on corruption, irregular government concessions, money laundering and obscure windfalls of incredible amounts of money from unknown sources. That has nothing to do with modern capitalism nor liberalism. 1880's robber baron capitalism, yes.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Sat Jun 13th, 2009 at 05:56:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
B came to power in order to avoid prosecution, right?

As I see it the state threathened a hostile take-over of his fortune, so he did a hostile take-over of the state. Now he uses it to build his power ever more. Not much of a political program, but he can not let go or he might get prosecuted again...

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jun 13th, 2009 at 07:27:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As I see it the state threathened a hostile take-over of his fortune

Looming charges of fraudulent bankruptcy. He was deeply in debt yet had a near monopoly of national TV.

but he can not let go or he might get prosecuted again...

He is too old to serve time even if he were condemned in a future trial. He presently has his involvement in the Mill's affair pending, but that would soon be quashed by the statute of limitations. The only other crimes he could have going are those that he is presently committing, for which he cannot be investigated so long as he is in power. Time passes, evidence disappears. An ideal setup, his self-inflicted immunity, to commit crime.

B came to power in order to avoid prosecution, right?

Also, a big also.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Sat Jun 13th, 2009 at 08:29:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That has nothing to do with modern capitalism nor liberalism. 1880's robber baron capitalism, yes.

I often think that "modern capitalism" is just 1880s robber baron capitalism in technicolour.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jun 13th, 2009 at 08:10:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series