On the other hand, very few jobs these days in the West are about survival anymore. It's true to some extent that you need to pay for your mortgage but at the same time the amount of bullshit jobs is staggering. People work for work for organizations that provide the service of allowing others to like photos of your holidays. Very few people are employed in farming these days as opposed to the entertainment industry. I'm not saying that working in the gaming industry is without value but compared to historical data it looks like it's very hard to die of a famine these days.
Not really Italian lira suffered from inflation, a lot of people push this narrative that somehow Italy was forced to join the Euro against her will. From Wikipedia:
Lira pesante
Due to the lira's low value after the war economic calculations and price displays became unwieldy because of the large number of zeroes. As early as the 1950s suggestions were made to redenominate the lira but no serious efforts were made at that time. In the 1970s a plan known as lira pesante [it] (English: hard lira) or lira nuova (new lira) was proposed. The lira pesante would have redenominated the currency at 1,000:1, removing 3 zeroes. However the project went dormant for several years before being revived in 1984. Ongoing heavy inflation saw the lira pesante pushed back until it was permanently abandoned in 1991 because of plans for a single European currency.
Soft agree with you about the secular ideologies, I keep wondering if the alternative was actually better. Pre globalization with hard borders, little travel, suspicious of your neighbours, long distance travel reserved for the rich. Is the old situation of social pressure to comply to local social norms better? I am not so hot about the culture of places with abject poverty. As you correctly pointed out it's amazing for a poor kid from Hyderabad or rather millions of other poor kids from similar places. I don't think there can be any kind of positive culture without peace, jobs and people getting along well.
> Notably, we have seen a massive failure in the EU to not only protect itself, 100% dependent on US military defence, even in 2020 - but one of the 'root problems' was the EU powerhouse, Germany, abdicating it's defence responsibilities, and selling out the entirety of the EU to Russian energy dependence which put the EU in an existentially weak position vis-a-vis Russia. If the US did not exist, Putin would be dominating the EU via it's vast tentacles (like it is in Hungary, but much worse, and all over).
There is no 'massive' failure in the EU to protect itself as it has no such objective nor a mandate to protect itself. It's up to individual countries to spend on their armed forces as was up to Britain to spend when it was part of it and the EU didn't stop it, it did so just fine. If the US did not exist that would have been taken into account by the member countries themselves and acted accordingly.
> Instead - UK, Turkey, Ukraine, Finland, Georgia, Switzerland will possibly join the 'expanded' EU (by another name), which will mostly be trade focused. The interesting thing about that however, the other nations, notably Spain, Italy, Greece will definitely start to wonder about 'the grass being greener' in those countries.
Spain, Italy and Greece have all joined the Eurozone (Italy is a founding member btw) for their own good reasons. If they wanted less integration they could have not adopted the Euro just like a number of other countries. People seem to forget what inflation looked like for their national currencies of these countries before getting the Euro and it was not very green.
"There is no 'massive' failure in the EU to protect itself as it has no such objective nor a mandate to protect itself."
First - change EU to Europe and the point is more clear: 'Europe' failed to defend itself.
Second - Though you're right, EU is not a defensive pact, it's inexorably irresponsible for EU to not provide for defence. Defence is an existential concept - one that involves parts of the state.
How can there be 'ever closer union' and 'open borders' if nations can't even provide for their own defence.
This is 100% clear with Germany's 'sellout' to Russia: Germany, the leading 'political' block in the EU, gave Russia massive leverage which has put Estonia, Latvia etc. at huge risk, and effectively handed over Ukraine do the hungry dogs.
In that dsyfunctional dynamic, 'Sovereign Europe' is still dependent on the Anglosphere: USA, UK and even Canada (!) all of whom have provided much more support than France, Italy, Spain etc (!) in defence of Europe.
"People seem to forget what inflation looked like for their national currencies of these countries before getting the Euro and it was not very green. "
"If they wanted less integration they could have not adopted the Euro just like a number of other countries."
Inflation is much more preferrable than the current straight-jacket death of a hard currency. The lack of inflation relative to Germany is killing Europe.
As for 'adopting and not' - there's no way for them to adjust otherwise. The EU is a 'one size fits all' regime and also a 'Hotel California' (i.e. cannot leave) game.
The Euro won't work without political and fiscal integration and that will never, ever happen, so it's probably better to find something a bit looser.
I hate to use the word 'privilege' but it applies the other way as well. Like someone is probably in a privileged position to demand immediate refund and a handsome EU compensation on top of that, many people in more unprivileged parts of the world wouldn't be so lucky to get any of that at all. Privilege arguments can go so many ways.
Exactly this. Not sure how much of the scientific messaging reaches the lower socioeconomic subsets of society either, I don't think kids' obesity is because they 've tried everything to lose weight and can't help themselves or rather their parents don't really understand the intricacies of how processed food works. There's something that defies intuition about a 50g mars bar having the same calories as a 300g potato even if most people vaguely understand that 'sugar is bad for you' but can't really put it in perspective, what does that mean in practice? The dosage makes the poison.
Has worked for me. I find the UK food labels on most products quite informative as a rule of thumb. I remember initially being very surprised at some food contains when I started paying attention and how very small things like Mars bars can have so many calories comparatively of course. I think there's something sinister about not wanting the consumer to know what your product contains.
This thread is full of people commenting along the lines of "I have been able to manage my weight successfully, so other people must be fat because they're lazy idiots."
HN is full of people who will accept nuance and complexity in technical discussions. Why not in this area as well, where individual biology, cultural expectations, economic incentives, and environmental factors intersect with personal choice?
The very point I'm trying to make is that human nature has not changed in the past 120 years. What has changed is the social and technological context in which we live.
Take a group of people from the 1900s and drop them in to the US in 2022, they would likely experience obesity at similar rates.
It's not that people made more virtuous choices in 1900, it's that food was scarcer, less palatable, and more nutritious, and physical activity was a part of daily life.
A busy suburban parent in a 2-income household did not need to squeeze in time to make a home-cooked meal and a Peloton workout around a 9-5 desk job with an hour+ car commute.
The "you are beautiful no matter how you look" social campaign probably doesn't help here. There are literally visual cues that you 're doing something in excess and your doctor tells you to lose weight but Instagram says it's ok to be obese. I wonder if there's a limit to it, is it still ok to be twice your normal weight overweight?
Do you live in the US? Fat people are routinely discriminated against in employment and healthcare. A few Instagram influencers and ad campaigns don't negate that.
I have never met a fat person who wasn't aware they are fat. I do know two people who have failed to lose significant weight even after bariatric surgery physically restricted how much they could eat.
After even the most extreme medical intervention fails and you are still obese, what can you do? Stay inside your home forever so that thin people are not forced to look at you? Never eat a piece of cake in public? Never go shopping, never date, never dance?
Of course not. In the end the only choice is to live your life anyway, in spite of your reduced opportunities and the judgment you receive from others.
If you're brave, you might even dare to post photos of yourself on Instagram.
> I have never met a fat person who wasn't aware they are fat.
"Today, 7 in 10 Americans are obese or overweight, but only 36 percent think they have a weight problem. In other words, close to half the people who are overweight or obese don't think they're overweight or obese."
I live in Europe. For employment that demands physical stamina it makes sense that fat people would not be favoured at the extreme level of obesity. My healthcare provider differentiates between overweight and obese and you can't treat triage as discrimination. There's a whole lot of middle ground between staying in your home not eating cake and promoting yourself on Instagram. Date and dance as you see fit.
The kind of discrimination I am talking about is refusing to hire fat people for desk jobs (or not promoting them, or paying them less) because of stereotypes that they are lazy or lack self-discipline or simple distaste for the way they look. [1]
Categorizing a patient as overweight or obese is not discrimination. Dismissing their health concerns or providing lower-quality care because they are fat is. [2]
I guess you could always go the Romania way, starve the population until debt is zero. The profit extractors were the government but at least it was "our" thieves not some foreign companies.
It's also important to remember why that debt was paid.
Our government had taken IMF loans with the goal of expanding industry to sell products to the West. We did, then we were prevented from selling finished products to many countries. Some of the production was redirected internally and towards trade with other socialist countries, but the loan denominated in dollars remained.
Then the IMF demanded we pay back the loan early, while mostly only allowing us to export food. Today this would be called sanctions. This was a tactic to intentionally create scarcity of food in the country, which coupled with constant propaganda (especially from Radio Free Europe) and arming and funding local fascists (including the famous snipers shooting into crowds), culminated in a bloody coup in '89. Similar tactics have been used by NATO powers against other countries.
Well I lived in Romania in the 1980s so I feel compelled to respond to this.
Romanian leadership took a lot of loans from the West and spend the money on large industrial projects with Western technology which was either obsolete or becoming obsolete (Dacia-Renault, Olcit-Cytroen, CANDU for the nuclear energy, Rombac-British Aircracft, etc...)
This was a huge bet that did not work - but it was all done by Romanian Leadership. The West did not ask Romania to borrow, Romania asked to borrow. When the bills came due at the end of 1970s Romania asked to roll over their debt. Unfortunately for Romania at the same time US FED (Volcker) was raising the interest rates sharply to combat inflation. So rolling over the debt was very expensive. This was not economic sanctions aimed at Romania - this happened to every borrower that had USD debts (including regular people in the US).
Romania choose to pay the debts and the only way to get USD was to sell resources - because the industrial products were obsolete and nobody in the West wanted to buy. So Romania sold food and whatever oil they still had and whatever steel they still had. For the Romanian people that meant food shortages, heat shortages, electricity shortages...
This was done by Romanian leadership. It was not economic sanctions from the West.
