leftist != Liberal. And the EU leftists aren't liberal in any real way. That's why terms like left and right don't mean anything outside of a specific place and time and even then, its just shorthand. If they were liberal, none of this would be happening.
Being liberal is hard but saying you are liberal is a great way to hide socialist and authoritarian tendencies. And that's the problem. If they were actually liberal, they wouldn't be censoring the Internet. Liberals believe in free speech, socialists don't. Its a big tell as which kind of leftist you are.
I am from EU, leftist, socialist and liberal (the left parts), and I can assure you, (a) most leftists (90%) are as liberal and antiauthoritarian as it gets, and (b) we are as powerless to change these things as you are.
Possibly, if you choose to believe me, things can change, but it's on you.
Depends on country. Here in Czechia, Communist party is one of most socially conservative one, while conservative christian party is center-left economically. Social democratic party, when it was relevant, was also pretty socially conservative, which makes sense considering their working class demigraphics.
Liberal doesn't mean supporting liberty, it means some interpolation between supporting free markets (neoliberal means just this one), and pretending that as long as we just follow the established institutional norms everything is fine and there is no need for radical change. It's synonymous right now for "centrist" - note that political labels drift over time.
Liberalism has both economic (free market) roots and political roots. The first "leftists" were the French revolutionaries and they wanted (political) freedom as well. The reason liberalism is in the "center" is because both left and right tried to appropriate it. (Although I think liberalism, in the sense of individual freedom, is a distinct value from other values such as conservative/authoritarian or socialist/communal.)
This terminology change is mostly limited to anglosphere. Outside of that 'liberal' is still commonly used for economic-right low-intervention position.
In the EU the leftists have no significant powers so not sure why we even talk about them here. The EU right now is ran by mostly centrists and right-wingers.
"I’m not sure why the level of discussion in this post is so poor."
Its because bond yields and fixed income in general isn't well understood by the public. Even in finance, its often not correctly understood except by those working in fixed income or the IT teams that support them. Funny thing is, often the devs in those departments understand global finance better than the CEOs running those firms because of how fixed incomes is seen by other departments. Basically, its the lowest department because it doesn't get great yield while ironically requiring the best math and economics knowledge to do.
You are misunderstanding some basic things about bonds. Bonds are weird. Higher yield means the bond gives out more coupons (yield, money, etc). But the bond itself costs exactly the same no matter the yield when first bought.
The actual thing being bid on in the bond market is the yield itself. Higher yield is sort of like a higher price in that it means you have to offer more to the lenders. However, what they are actually betting on isn't the ability of the US government to repay. What they are actually betting on is the future inflation rate. So a higher yield doesn't mean what it means for corp debt (ie we don't think you will be able to pay this back). A higher yield for t-bills actually means lenders think inflation will increase in the future. Hence the FED raising rates to fight inflation.
PS But seriously, the bond market is very weird and most people mess up what changes in yield mean for different kinds of bonds because they don't mean the same things (unlike securities ie stocks).
PPS This is all because of the reduction in the amount of oil available worldwide, which triggers increases in global rates, which triggers increases in US rates.
The term socialism wasn't defined by Marx. That's the heart of why you don't understand the definition of that word. There are a half dozen different branches with different definitions, all of which predate Marx. The only reason that you think that is that Lenin made him famous. But you can have socialism without any of the things you mention. It still doesn't work but its different. Think Finland in the 1970s or Sweden in the 1980s. Or Britain and Spain today. Those are all socialist societies by their own definitions. They also don't work.
PS Now a serious question, do you think your country is worth defending? If not, why should another country think it is?
> Or Britain and Spain today. Those are all socialist societies by their own definitions.
... Er, no, Britain is not a socialist society by its own definitions, or anyone else's (unless you want to stretch the term so far that it encompasses Labour's fairly minimal social democracy, but at that point the term is becoming almost meaningless). Where are you getting that?
The Chinese themselves blew up one of their own satellites as a test of their own capabilities. The missile was launched from the ground but targeted from orbit. They themselves say this and have since they did it 8 years ago. Your ignorance isn't an argument.
The Chinese have been bragging about taking out one of their own satellites in a test of their capabilities for 8 years now. Russia would but they don't have the money to even try.
This place is no better than X...seriously...it is just too small for the propaganda operations to target and yet it is still just as bad. I don't even think it is HN's fault, just the skew of the population HN attracts.
Not even sure who I'm supposed to be propagandising for here, but as the person that actually works on European dual use satellite tech I can assure you it's well established fact that all superpowers have taken out their own satellites with ASAT weaponry (Russia more recently than China fwiw, though China's in-space capabilities are likely a lot better). None of those are a violation of the very narrow anti-WMD proscriptions in the Outer Space Treaty, and whatever counterspace capability the US is vaguely announcing here (or indeed the capability they and their adversaries have had for years) is unlikely to be either.
Tell me you don't understand deterrence without telling me you don't understand deterrence. Without nuclear weapons, WWIII happens in 1962. People that call it "an unresolved issue" are far more likely to cause warfare because you think of geo-politics as a series of problems to be solved. That's not how it works. Its about managing and moderating passions, not about "solving" problems. The constant injection of people who think this way is the cause of political violence and war. They are not the people who will "solve it" and bring about "the end of history". This is one of the greatest ironies of life.
So China has learned that their army and leadership needs to live underground for the duration of the war and only come out if they are in a crowd of civilians? They learned that their AA doesn't work against the US? Not sure what specifically you mean.
Also, if you are talking about "disassembly" via AI powered drones, the limiting factor there is, was and always has been how much mass you can move to the right location from a safe distance. AI and drones don't change that. They can however make standoff munitions cheaper and EW less effective...that's about it.
AI in Ukraine (where the real lessons are learned) has been a bust so far.
Being liberal is hard but saying you are liberal is a great way to hide socialist and authoritarian tendencies. And that's the problem. If they were actually liberal, they wouldn't be censoring the Internet. Liberals believe in free speech, socialists don't. Its a big tell as which kind of leftist you are.
reply