>Norway will come under France's nuclear umbrella, leaders say>Macron and Stoere announced the plan at a meeting in Paris, where they also signed a broader defence agreement which includes Norway joining a French-led nuclear weapons initiative. Under the plan, Norway would take part in what France calls "forward nuclear deterrence", under which European partners are more closely involved in French strategic thinking on nuclear defence. Stoere told Norwegian news agency NTB earlier on Wednesday that no nuclear weapons will be deployed in Norway in peacetime.>In March, France offered to extend the protection of its nuclear umbrella to other European countries which, in practice, means that an attack on a country could trigger a French nuclear response.Norway becomes the latest country to receive France's nuclear protection, after Poland and Lithuania, which also share borders with Russia.https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/norway-will-come-under-frances-nuclear-umbrella-leaders-say-2026-05-27/Realistically how effective would the French nuclear umbrella be in a conflict given its limited delivery systems and lack of forward deployment. Could Rafales provide counter-strike ability to hit Minsk if if it came to it early in a conflict? Pic related.
>>65189755>nuclear umbrellaI refuse to believe such a thing exists until I see a nation use nukes in defence of another nation.
>>65189774If you see that happen, it means that deterrence has already failed you colossal fucking retard. Countries under a nuclear umbrella not getting nuked in the first place is the metric here
>>65189781>Countries under a nuclear umbrella not getting nuked in the first placeIf it's just "don't nuke but annex is fine" it provides no functional protection against a larger conventional force.If it's "we will use our nukes to defend them" then it is a real deterrent against regional powers but you have to back it up with action when pressed.
>>65189755With France's limited first strike policy how would they use that in regards to other Nations? Do they nuke invading forces in the invaded territory or do they drop it on the aggressors territory?
>>65189755>NATO country>french protection with anythinglol, lmao even. i bet frogs have plans to nuke them first in case of actual conflict.
>>65189797>France explicitly reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defense or to protect its "vital interests," which have a European dimension.
>>65189755Russia is curently losing an air campaign to Cessnas with bombs duct taped to them. There's fuck all they could do against the French air force.>>65189797>russia starts troop buildup on the border of a country under the French nuclear umbrella>France advises russia to not be niggers>russia does something like transfers blood to the forces on the border which, just like Ukraine and every other invasion ever in the modern era, is a sure sign that they're going to start shit>France preemptively nukes the largest force concentration>>65189787>annexation by a nuclear power of a non nuclear power is OK because of nuclear blackmailThe outcome of Ukraine is almost certainly going to be the death of nonproliferation precisely because of this bullshit.
>>65189816The whole point of nonproliferation has been so nuclear powers can use nuclear blackmail, if everyone has MAD then major powers have no one left to bully.I'm honestly happy to see the end of nonproliferation and want every country to have the bomb, yes even that one.
>>65189822>yes even that oneBut anon, we poop from there!
>>65189822>The whole point of nonproliferation has been so nuclear powers can use nuclear blackmail,Absolute retard take.
>>65189816>The outcome of Ukraine is almost certainly going to be the death of nonproliferation precisely because of this bullshit.UM, Ukraine is winning sweety.
>>65189895>Ziggerjeet immediately thinking about Black dicksYou are the new iteration of Mutt's Law
>>65189797the first step is to just talk with those countries to set boundaries and figure out at what point they'd prefer a tactical nuke being dropped on their soil to get the russians the "okay this is far enough" with applied advanced physics.the second step is figuring out how that can be achievedif for instance for the Norwegians that's right at the border they would have to figure out how to get those "to those whom it may concern sunrises" all the way up north.there's 4 options to this, just on time delivery all the way from Franceforward basing the bombsforward basing a nuclear strike package in Norwayforward basing the bombs and letting the Norwegians do the deliveryit isn't just about how to get it done but also how convincing it is to the russians that there would be nuclear escalation if those boundaries are reached.the more forward the deployment the more the French are committing, the more the Norwegians are involved the more sure that they will (try) to do it even if the French don't want toPersonally I'd see the French selling tactical nukes to Norway and Poland. ofc they'd have to be serviced in France or by some French personnel and they'd need to buy a French delivery platform for them. so the French would still be in the loop. but that would pay at least in part for their own program and make them the nuclear heart of the EU
>>65189787>If it's just "don't nuke but annex is fine" it provides no functional protection against a larger conventional force.You don´t use nukes against a conventional force, you just lose the war if you can´t win conventionally. So the current situation is this. We just had a debate in Denmark about nukes, a Norwegian officer had a great proposal in that debate. He thinks the Nordics should get nukes together and then have the responsibility of the red button go on rotation between the leaders of those countries. The good thing about it is that it makes it clear that it is strictly a defense against nukes, nothing else. Which would make it easier for the rest of the world to accept. If Germany invades Denmark and Finland sits on the red button at that time, I don´t expect them to start nuking Germany nor would I want them to, that´s fucking insane, we just lose to Germany before we throw nukes on German cities. In the same way, we will not start nuking Russian troops if they invade Finland. The problem is, Russia will simply not stop threatening nukes and they do it to countries that don´t have them, like Ukraine. The only conclusion is that Russia would have used tactical nukes against Ukraine were it not for the repercussions from other countries, in particular from countries that have nukes. Russia will at some point attack the Baltics, it will happen and they are going to do it at the most opportunistic time, which mean when they feel that the U.S, France and Britain are most likely to get involved as little as possible. That means the Nordic countries and Poland will have a war with Russia over the Baltics within 50 years with limited help from the rest of the world. We can win that war conventionally, but it will be hard when the opponent keep threatening with nukes and we have to fight the war on the terms of France, Britain and the U.S who would rather just see it over with and really can´t give a fuck about the Baltics.
>>65189755Throwing a nuke at anyone will get you glassed to hell in response, rogue nuclear powers are not allowed to exist. So if someone wants to nuke, they go all in. Launches will be detected, and if nuclear powers detect another is opening their silos then everyone else does tooNuclear threats mean nothing, if someone wants to nuke another nation they will use whatever their least detectable method is to start (SSBN or bust) and try to catch them at low readiness, intent on doing as much damage as possible to their (and their nuclear allies) retaliation capabilites. They don't announce it constantly on state TV that they're totally going to do it this time while floundering in a war against some poor shithole neighbour (that they also won't nuke for aforementioned reason)
>>65190011>Nuclear threats mean nothingTell me your county has nukes without telling me your country has nukes.Surely you think it is a great idea for your country to give up nukes and leave it up to other countries to make sure your forces doesn´t get a tactical nuke thrown in their face when they are curbstomping Russians. No? The rest of the world didn´t agree to not get nukes out of fear for the countries with nuclear weapons, but because everyone could see that using nuclear weapons is a really stupid fucking idea. Now you got a loser nation like Russia chimping out as they lose a conventional war and countries like India, France, Britain, China and the U.S does fuckall to stop their threats against non-nuclear powers. You´re a fucking disgrace every single one of you and you all got complacent thinking the state of affairs was permanent.
>>65190011>if someone wants to nuke another nation they will use whatever their least detectable method is to startThats why France nuke doctrine is shooting first if they get the slightest feeling that an attack on them could be coming.
>>65189895textbook
>>65190031What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read my post? Russia threatens to nuke other nuclear powers every single week too, they're not going to do shit because it means retaliation, and that goes if you're some third world shithole, a poor Eastern euro nation or a nuclear power yourselfNuclear powers will not allow another state to start swinging their atomic dick, calm down and read next time.>>65190037Tbqh I think most of the nations have a first strike policy, at least they don't deny they have a first strike policy that is
>>65190071They don't.
>>65190059its not first strike. Its pre-first strike
>>65190080Are you sure?https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F14042?lang=en
>>65190059>What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read my post? Russia threatens to nuke other nuclear powers every single week too,Yeah, and they have nukes, so if you are born and have lived your entire life in a nuclear nation, you don´t get it. >Nuclear powers will not allow another state to start swinging their atomic dick, calm down and read next time.Well they did allow Russia to help Syria gas people didn´t they? ABC, Atomic, Biological, Chemical. It sounds so good to say you won´t allow it, but then the follow up doesn´t always match the words. Ukraine gave up their nukes, in return the U.S would help Ukraine defend itself. Obama didn´t give much help because he viewed Ukraine as being in Russia´s sphere of interest. Biden called Zelensky and offered him a plane ticket out of Kiev and dragged his feet every single step of the way when it came to supporting Ukraine, even when Denmark were ready to donate F-16´s. Trump? So if 20 years from now Russia invades the Baltics and Denmark´s response is doing obvious warcrimes like taking down every skyscraper in St. Petersburg and Moscow making 9/11 look like an episode of Teletubbies and Russia responds with a small tactical nuke on Danish forces or a little tactical nuke on the outskirts of a Danish city, you´re going to blow up the entire world?
>>65189822The idea behind non-proliferation was so countries, like that one, that have to casually mulch 30k dissidents don't have wild regime swings or back tinpot dictators into desperate situations while armed with nukes you dingus. Every country being able to drop a really really big bomb is more likely to have global leadership recalculate the acceptable costs of war than to be the end of conflict
>>65189885Yes. Doesn't really change that they got screwed over for giving up the nuclear deterrent they could've retained after the USSR imploded.
>>65190093>allowed if you want to challenge that you're the father>allowed if it's to challenge support paymentsisn't that the two reasons you'd get one done?also the ban isn't that it's outlawed but that you can't use it as evidence in court unless the court ordered it for the above mentioned reasons
>>65189930>You don´t use nukes against a conventional force, you just lose the war if you can´t win conventionally. Absolute nitwit take.
>>65190093I am sure. You cannot just do it without that party's consent (unless court allows it). Europe is not Maury.
>>65190095I'm not sure what you are not understanding. It does not matter who the recipient of the strike is, rogue nuclear nations cannot be allowed to exist. Russia knows there is a chance of retaliation if it strikes a nation with even one warhead. It doesn't have to be a guarantee, maybe it wouldn't even happen, but even a chance is too much risk to take. Retaliation means total nuclear decapitation attempt, because nobody is going to do a limited response on a nuclear power willing to use nukes in a limited conventional war for quite obvious reasons. Ergo if Russia wants to nuke ukraine once, it launches all it's nukes at all powers that could retaliate in an attempt to stop any retaliation, and it isnt going to announce this with a threat on TV for domestic audiences. This is global nuclear war, and yes it happens even if a non nuclear protected power gets one tactical nuke thrown at it (unless maybe its the poorest of the poor shithole)Russians helping Syrians use gas in a civil war (that required actual investigation) is not the same as the globe waking up to footage of a mushroom cloud. FYI that's not how the memorandum works, what it said is the nations would respect Ukraines territory, which Russia is obviously in violation of, and if the US accepts Russias claims on territory could say they are, but as we are they are not because it wasn't a defence clause.
>>65190134>lear nations cannot be allowed to exist. Russia knows there is a chance of retaliation if it strikes a nation with even one warhead. It doesn't have to be a guarantee, maybe it wouldn't even happen, but even a chance is too much risk to take. Retaliation means total nuclear decapitation attempt, because nobody is going to do a limited response on a nuclear power willing to use nukes in a limited conventional war for quite obvious reasons.You´re making shit up. The security advisor under Biden told publicly what he had told Russia would happen if they used a tactical nuclear nuke against Ukraine. Then America would destroy the Russian fleet in the black sea. The level of tip toeing there has been towards this loser nation called Russia, this rotting carcass of a nation, is purely because they have nukes and the leaders, in particular American leaders are worried about it. The Nordic countries will get nukes, Poland will get nukes, I assume Germany is getting nukes and if the rest of Europe does fine without nukes, good for them, if they need them, be my guest.I will say this, at least your current leadership, Hegseth and my impression is Trump as well does understand it and accepts it. How the rest of the world will perceive it I don´t know, in the end they have to take it up with Russia since they are causing the problem.
>>65190159Lmao source that. What he publically said was>We have communicated directly, privately and at very high levels to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the US and our allies will respond decisively, and we have been clear and specific about what that will entail
Anything to say "fuck you" to the US, I guess.
>>65189870Not anymore you don't
>>65190186You´re probably right, it must have been one of the 4 star commentators who suggested that would be a reasonable response. Although I haven´t tried to find the source.Either way, no one believes the use of a tactical nuke from Russia against a non-nuclear power would be followed up by a total nuclear war against Russia and the U.S.But even if it did, even if I entertained that idea. The Nordic countries should still get nukes. Because when we get our own nukes, U.S, France and Britain wouldn´t try and stifle our war against Russia when it comes. Since we would have our own nukes, none of them would have to start nuclear war against Russia if they decided to use a tactical nuke. The Nordic countries can handle that themselves. Instead of having a Nordic leader sitting in the White House having an American President crying about they are playing with World War 3 because they dare defend their own territory against a bunch of losers hiding behind rusty nukes. So your words in this thread, you try and sound so decisive and then you look at how it plays out in the real world and the answer is just obvious that if you want to have a conventional war against Russia, you´re better of getting nukes.
>>65189755It wasn't NATOs policy to nuke back if Norway was nuked??
>>65190236I don´t know anon, if Russia invade the Baltics and Polands response is invading Kaliningrad and Russia uses a tactical nuke against the Polish forces in Kaliningrad, what is the response?
>>65190228I am fully on board with nuclear prolification within NATO states, I never haven't been. I mean I see the logic in any state doing so (as far as they can be trusted to maintain at least a stable form of government)The crux of what I'm saying though is nuclear strikes of even an extremely limited nature have to merit a response>Russia is in a non existential war>Russia nukes Porkroievbasskmut>NATO responds conventially>Russia is now existentially threatened and has already shown to be willing to use nukesSo what happens? Does Russia use nuclear arms against NATO now? Does it immediately capitulate?>Russia tactically nukes NATO forces in Eastern Europe>NATO has now directly been nuked by Russia>NATO has to now consider (well it already was) its hundreds of millions of civilians at risk of nuclear strike>it's only valid response is total nuclear decapitation (which was always its only valid response)But those steps won't be followed, because planners know if Russia is willing to nuke then it will be willing to nuke when totally threatened. The Russian state itself is aware that an isolated nuclear strike is a direct existential threat to NATO, ergo will not risk its own total destruction, and will not use a nuke.
>>65190239I'm so glad I don't live in a buffer state
>>65189930>He thinks the Nordics should get nukes together and then have the responsibility of the red button go on rotation between the leaders of those countries.I literally said this 4 years ago, who is reading my mind? But anyway it makes sense. Nordics can't rely on anybody than ourselves, so might build a nuke program, maybe add the baltics.
>>65190236Up until recently most Europeans thought they could rely on the US to nuke back in case that happened, since we afterall buy all their military equipment and helped them every time they went on an Middle Eastern/Asian adventure, but those days are gone I guess.
>>65189930You absolutely do use nukes against conventional targets. It's a big enough show of force that it forces the politicians to think again if they are committed to a war that could escalate into city killing bombs being used.Frances nuclear umbrella has the problem of not having any low yield nukes.
Fuck NPT; EVERYONE should have nukes
>>65190121>Europe is not Maury.It is worse apparently. >the cheater has to give permission>you have to ask a court and they can just say no
>>65190289>It is the europeans fault that we invaded IraqWhy are americans like this?
>>65190349It's mostly the trump administration. They're hellbent on pushing Europe away from the US for some reason.
>>65190349>forgot the Brits just copypasta The Rock for intelligence reports regarding WMD
>>65190236
>>65190364this so much this1$ trillion handout to Israel? sign me the fuck up
>>65190236It was always NATO (and Warsaw Pact) policy that it's Germany that gets nuked. I'm sure France will continue this tradition into the 21st century.>>65190346>If I repeat it enough it becomes true
>>65190364Oy vey. That's some serious kvetching.
>>65189885>one of the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum invaded them twice within 25 years>the other one twiddled its thumbs the first time, and halfway through the second decided "naw fuck actually honoring our word"Ukraine could march monke through Kiev tomorrow for Zelensky to personally strangle to cap off his triumph, they're still going to be building nukes after this war.>>65189822The whole point of nonproliferation was to try and prevent the use of nuclear weapons by absolute retards in pointless regional wars, because normalizing nuclear strikes ends very badly for humanity. Turns out it only takes two retards in charge of the two largest nuclear arsenals to fuck that idea up.>>65189928France already sells a ton of reactor tech, I could see them helping their allies set up weapons production or just selling them warheads.
>>65190364i think posts like these are written in equal parts by israelis, russians and americans who have 0 understanding of the actual economic relations between EU and the US
n December 2019, Israel revealed it had an agreement with Russia not to sell arms to Ukraine and Georgia, in exchange for Russia refraining from selling arms to IranIn April 2009, Russia purchased its first package of drones from Israel (the Bird Eye-400, eight I-View Mk150 and two Searcher Mk.2 UAVs). The deal was worth $53 million.[251] In a second deal, at the end of 2009, Russia purchased an additional 36 drones from Israel, in a deal worth $100 million.[246]In October 2010, in a third deal, Russia purchased an additional $400 million of drones from Israel Aerospace Industries. The Israeli drones are to be assembled in Russia.[252] The production of the Russian-Israeli drones began in 2012, and delivery to the Russian military is scheduled for 2014.[246]In 2015, one of the drones was reportedly shot down by the Ukrainian military near the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.[253]In September 2015, the Russian Army purchased another $300 million package of drones from Israel, its fourth purchase of Israeli drones.>>65189755
>>65189755France needs to be destroyed
>>65190581
As a military genius, my take on the situation is thus.>Norway is too far from France for the french nukes to deter a first strike.>I seriously doubt France would really use its nukes to defend Norway>France is going to be nuclear ash at the onset of a nuclear war, so I doubt they could use their nukes to help Norway even if they wanted to.
Norway cannot be trusted.
>>65189755>which, in practice, means that an attack on a country could trigger a French nuclear response.France does not have the bagettes to push the launch button.
>>65192107Go back to your fish boat. You can't play with the big kids yet.
>>65190349>projective greentext that is not accurate to post quoted in order to make a troll postKill yourself.
>>65189930>If Germany invades Denmark and Finland sits on the red button at that time, I don´t expect them to start nuking Germany nor would I want them to, that´s fucking insaneNot much of a deterence then is it?
>>65189930Tactical nukes are the point in the esculation ladder that forces even the most determined conventional force to rethink their invasion.You don't go straight to deleting cities because your capital is going to fall in the next month, you hit a military target with a little 10kt warning.>If Germany invades Denmark and Finland sits on the red button at that time, I don´t expect them to start nuking Germany nor would I want them toWhat if Germany invades Denmark while Denmark has the button? You expect them to allow their contry to be annexed?>The only conclusion is that Russia would have used tactical nukes against Ukraine were it not for the repercussions from other countries, in particular from countries that have nukes.I don't think Russia fears getting nuked if they hit the front in Ukraine with a tactical nuke, who is going to risk a counter value strike to do that?The real risk to Russia using nukes is suddenly it goes from limited aid to NATO no-fly-zone over Ukraine, SEAD and DEAD conducted by NATO on Russian forces inside Ukraine, Russia being full sanctioned by EVERYONE including China and India.
>>65189755At the risk of sounding obvious, nukes that aren’t yours aren’t, well, yoursDoes the average fag from vilnius believes frogs are willing to likely kick off MAD over them? I wouldn’tWhich is to say, every podunk shall build their own. It’ll be more fun this way
>>65189930>If Germany invades Denmark and Finland sits on the red button at that time, I don´t expect them to start nuking Germany nor would I want them to, that´s fucking insane, we just lose to Germany before we throw nukes on German cities. In the same way, we will not start nuking Russian troops if they invade Finland.Very feminine post, are you sure you’re from binland?
>>65192107Malaysia would probably sell it to the Chinese or some shit
>>65189755>Realistically how effective would the French nuclear umbrella be in a conflict given its limited delivery systems and lack of forward deployment.You know that the nuke only needs to reach MOSCOW. I'll say it's effective.
>>65189755I feel that France has been posturing tough lately because that is arguably what is needed in the geopolitical climate, but it is also just posturing.If Russia was dumb enough to attack or invade Norway, current day France wouldn't do shit except send aid.Maybe some deniable SF teams.
>>65190352No they aren't. Europe literally will not take any steps towards independence if they think there's a chance the U.S. will step in on their behalf. We've had multiple presidents tell the Euros to stop being retarded and re-arm. Their response was to laugh. European politicians will literally not do anything unless forced. At a certain point America just ran out of carrots and had to go all stick.It's also retarded that a continent of 450 million people and 20 trillion in GDP expects to be babysat by the USA with favorable defense and trade deals.
>>65193861Euro domestic politics are a disaster. There isn't a major power in Europe that isn't deal with some combination of a inflation, sluggish growth, heavy debt loads, and run-away government spending. Standing up to Putin is like the only thing a Euro politician has that plays broadly with the electorate over there. That's why you see all these rhetorical moves.
>>65193861I'd like to think they would airstrike russian forces inside Norway due to Article 5, but I do doubt if they would be overt about it.I could honestly see them loaning or selling Rafale Bs to Norway, and then having French pilots with Norwegian WOs to pull strikes just to have some semblance of having clean hands.
>>65193861France has the foreign legion specifically to be able to take military action without losing domestic political support.They would send the legion for sure.
>>65194049>run-away government spendingThere is nothing wrong with government spending, you just need to tax enough to cover it.The west as a whole has spent the last 60 years cutting tax rates and then using the lack of money as an excuse to cut government spending.Look at the 50s for the peak of the west, a man working 40 hours can have a stay at home wife, 6 kids, a house and the top tax rate was 90%.
>>65194113That isn't deniable ops though. If anything sending recruits that are often from former French colonies is going to give them a headache at home with immigrant riots if they end up getting Wagnered.
>>65194123You aren't getting it, civilian populations don't like seeing their young men killed in war, in democracies this loses elections.To solve this France has a way to send non-citizens the public don't care about. It isn't about plausible deniability it's about being able to take casualties without losing votes.
>>65194118>at the 50s for the peak of the west, a man working 40 hours can have a stay at home wife, 6 kids, a house and the top tax rate was 90%You could fill a middle school gymnasium with the number of people that paid that tax rate back in 1950, and the tax code same as now was riddled with loopholes. Effectively nobody paid that (it represented about 0.1% of federal revenue). The effective tax rate was essentially the same for the top 1% of earners. Moreover, the government was vastly less involved in welfare spending at the national level. Most government spending went to defense. So indeed what has changed is the vast expansion of the social safety net and incredible market distortion as a result. Is it any surprise that health, housing, and education; the two most regulated and intervened in markets are also the ones that have skyrocketed in price since the wave of government intervention beginning in the 1960s?
>>65194139The more important part of the 90% tax rate is that the loopholes to beat it involved investing directly into American productivity and stock buybacks (among other serious fuckery we allow now, like infinite bailouts and private equity buying a company they can't afford and assigning all the debt from that purchase to the company itself) were illegal.
>>65194189You seem to have a weird understanding of how finance works. By any empirical study, American corporations are vastly better run than they were in the 1950s, largely thanks to innovations by private equity ownership.I also think we're arguing from a false premise. Whatever today's economic problems are, at least in the U.S., the middle class is larger today than it was in 1950s.
>>65192138>>65192914Malaysia is a NEUTRAL country and has the right to seek closer ties with China, Russia, the US and EU at the same time
>>65194139>You could fill a middle school gymnasium with the number of people that paid that tax rate back in 1950Yes and you could do the same today, there are under 1,000 billionaires in the US.>The effective tax rate was essentially the same for the top 1% of earnersAs for the effective top tax rate it was 40% because of the loop holes you mentioned, today the top effective rate is ~20%.>Moreover, the government was vastly less involved in welfare spending at the national level.Why only mention welfare spending instead of the massive government spending on the interstate system, the hoover dam and dozens more major state owned projects?>Is it any surprise that health, housing, and education; the two most regulated and intervened in markets are also the ones that have skyrocketed in priceOh, yeah I don't know how to reason with someone that thinks corporations hate profits and set the lowest possible prices to minimize profits.
>>65194136And you are not understanding the muslims and africans in France being pissed that France sent muslims and africans to die.
>>65194250>Yes and you could do the same today, there are under 1,000 billionaires in the US.Which is totally irrelevant to our discussion about income tax, unless you think the ultra-rich make their money on a W-2, in which case, you're retarded.>As for the effective top tax rate it was 40% because of the loop holes you mentioned, today the top effective rate is ~20%.For the 1% the effective tax was like 29% in 1955 and it's like 27.5 today. However, the share of income tax paid by the 1% has gone from about 20% to 40% today.>Why only mention welfare spending instead of the massive government spending on the interstate system, the hoover dam and dozens more major state owned projects?Call it non-defense spending, I don't care. Either way, it's more than tripled as a share of GDP since the 1950s.>Oh, yeah I don't know how to reason with someone that thinks corporations hate profits and set the lowest possible prices to minimize profits.Nowhere did I say or even suggest this. All I said is that the markets that have experienced the most government regulation and subsidy are the ones that have become the least affordable. Maybe in the but-for world the prices would go even higher, but I'm skeptical.
>>65194226Sauce. Now.
>>65194226Stripping profitable and stable corporations of their most valuable divisions, assigning all the debt used to buy the corporation to what remains of it, and then watching it crash and burn is not "better managed" than companies that did not do that.
>>65194286>Claim on American companies being better run by private equity owners.Jerry Cao & Joshua Lerner, The Performance of Reverse Leveraged Buyouts (2006), p. 27 & tbl. 5explanation: over the long run, companies that were operated by PE outperform their peers that never went private. That being said, there is some survivorship bias because the nature of an LBO means more bad firms go bankrupt due to having a smaller equity cushion. The paper is old, but there are an army of finance PhD's who would write a paper the second there was data supporting otherwise the opposite conclusion.>claim on the shrinking middle class https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-because-of-a-booming-upper-middle-class/explanation: most stats decrying a dying middle class use a "relative" metric. Meaning they compare share of overall income in the middle quintile to the top quintile or 1%. While this is helpful for understanding income distribution, it's a poor measure of well being. If you use "absolute" definitions of class, which are defined relative to the poverty line, then America has been remarkably successful at growing the middle class, particularly the upper middle class.
>>65189781>metric hereWell yeah that's what Europe uses.
>>65194322Obviously there are bad deals, but that's certainly not unique to PE. When it works well, it generates a lot of value. And best-practices developed in the PE world have had a knock-on effect in improving public company management. In the 1970s and 80s during the rise of PE, there were a lot of poorly run corporations, managed by absentee CEOs who didn't have much skin in the game. PE played an important role in disciplining them.
>>65194345The thing is, we're consumers, so innovations such as removing all QA, outsourcing production to the cheapest fourth world shithole they can find, removing popular products to push slightly more profitable and shittier versions, cutting pay and benefits as hard as possible, and bribing the government to create pseudo-monopolies doesn't actually benefit us in any way.
>>65194365We're consumers but also investors who benefit from higher returns. The economy also benefits when there is more deployable capital. While you have valid criticisms about the enshitification of society, I don't think that's directly a PE problem. Whoever was the decision-maker was going to do everything you just described, the onus is on us socially to decide what is legal and illegal behavior. Corporations should profit-maximize within those constraints. Private Equity, at it's core, is just an effective means of aligning management incentives with shareholders.
>>65194345>>65194363How is private equity better than private ownership?>>65194322As this anon said, You make be maximizing profits for the investor, but the workers and society suffer because some already rich fucks leverage a takeover, bleed the company slowly while killing quality and then part out the company as soon as it stops being profitable and reinvests their sell off to do it again.That is a parasite.
>>65194393>You make be maximizing profits for the investor, but the workers and society suffer because some already rich fucks leverage a takeover, bleed the company slowly while killing quality and then part out the company as soon as it stops being profitable and reinvests their sell off to do it again.Anybody can rip the market off once, but most PE firms are repeat players in the market. It's essentially a reputation business. A PE firm can't get away with stripping all the value out of a company than flipping it, because it's selling the stuff to other PE firms who have no interest in being left holding the bag. So they have no choice but to organically increase the value of the company. Which they typically do by adjusting the capital structure to include more debt and aligning management pay with firm performance.It's certainly not a perfect industry, but I think it's become a popular scapegoat for all of society's ills, when it's really just another mechanism in capital markets.
>>65194283>Which is totally irrelevant to our discussion about income taxIf you concept of tax reform is so limited you can't imagine a world where realized capital gains or loans 100% backed by assets are "income" then you need to read.>For the 1% the effective tax was like 29% in 1955 and it's like 27.5 today. However, the share of income tax paid by the 1% has gone from about 20% to 40% today.Lets assume this is 100% true, you do understand you just said the 1% are now twice as rich right? If a guy working 40 hours now can't afford a stay at home wife, house & 6 kids maybe that's where the money has gone.>markets that have experienced the most government regulation and subsidy are the ones that have become the least affordableMy counter point would be Somalia has the least enforced regulations on earth, if you hate them so much that is somewhere to consider.>>65194282When have immigrants ever given a shit about other immigrants, look at the wall of brown in any ICE lineup to see what I mean.
>>65194245>seek closer ties with China, RussiaDisgusting, no wonder the vikings dumped them
>>65194443>If you concept of tax reform is so limited you can't imagine a world where realized capital gains or loans 100% backed by assets are "income" then you need to read.I can imagine it, but those policies didn't exist in the 1950s, so I don't see how it's germane to your point. It's fine to support these policies, but don't cite some fictional version of the 1950s as evidence they work.>Lets assume this is 100% true, you do understand you just said the 1% are now twice as rich right? If a guy working 40 hours now can't afford a stay at home wife, house & 6 kids maybe that's where the money has gone.I understand the rhetoric appeal of this point, but it's not really based in any measurable statistic. Like the image I linked to here: >>65194345, evidence seems to be that on the whole, families are moving out of poverty. I think there are a lot of factors contributing to the worrying decline of the American family, the difficulty of raising children on a single income being one of them.>My counter point would be Somalia has the least enforced regulations on earth, if you hate them so much that is somewhere to consider.Well it's a shitty point because you're taking things to a ridiculous level. There is obviously a ton of play in the joints between the regulatory and subsidy schemes of 1950s U.S.A. and today, without invoking a failed state like Somalia. Give me a break. I'm not calling you Stalin just because you want to raise taxes.
>>65194468Pay relative to productivity is a very measurable metric which separated starting in 1973 and has only widened since. In case you don't understand, pay has barely increased at all, productivity has skyrocketed. I make twice as much as someone who worked in my position 50 years ago but my dollars are ten times weaker than theirs were.
>>65194483I feel your pain, but I think we are just at a crossroads in terms of what we think the problem is. My position is that government spending and regulation has distorted markets in critical areas like housing, education, and healthcare, ballooning costs. I understand your contention is that too much money is flowing to a small share of rentier asset owners who push prices up for everyone.We're both probably right, because who the fuck can afford all the lawyers fees and compliance costs besides some rich fuck. Meanwhile it feels like you can get in trouble with the law if you change your car's oil improperly.
>>65190352>for some reason
>>65189755>stoereAre they too lazy to copy paste the Norwegian o from Wikipedia or something?
>>65194509>because who the fuck can afford all the lawyers fees and compliance costs besides some rich fuckthat's why there is over regulation, to protect incumbent market leaders from new competition. this in turn allows them to squeeze water from a rock and optimize profits
norway got nukes before gta 6
