popular economics

The notion that economic populism pedaled by Sanders is a big tent everyone can get on board, while social issues are limiting and divisive is just patently false.

Before anyone goes, why can’t the left, esp the democrats, be about both & we don’t have to choose? Well that’s what the democratic base - made up of people of color, esp black women - has always been saying, that Democratic Party needs to be both, coz we can’t just deal with economic issues while letting social issues take a back seat, because that’s how we often end up with economic inequality.

Race and gender are very much part of any economic issue yet often missing in economic policymaking; and the focus on class warfare alone isn’t fixing, doesn’t fix, and hasn’t fixed the underlying causes of our economic inequality.

Take this latest fiasco on reproductive rights as negotiable in favor of more “neutral” economic issues. Those who get less pay, not considered for certain jobs and promotions are because we have a uterus and/or are still expected to maintain traditional female roles, while trying to compete professionally under a very white and patriarchal cis male playing field. We get periods, get pregnant, are expected to raise kids, leave work early for PTA meetings, call off work when kids get sick, and/or stay home when we can’t get a baby sitter - and these are used against us to not get the same pay, get jobs, get promotions, advance in our fields at the same pace as our male counterparts, etc.

While it is true more men are taking paternity leaves and not all women get pregnant or have kids, but it’s women, regardless of what reproductive choices we make, are still the ones who get penalized economically.

So if you just advocate for equal pay and paid leave, but not have women, especially women of color, help develop the policy or at least form policies with race & gender lenses/minimum standards in mind, then you’ll create policies that speaks to and benefit mostly white, mostly male and mostly in the upper class.

Additionally, the sanders economic populism is short-sighted, which is why he often don’t get anything passed legislatively, even though they’re well, popular economic ideas.

Take also the fight for 15, which is one of his hills to die on. I applaud the unions and labor groups fighting for a living wage, and that’s what unions do, collectively fight for better pay for workers. But when you’re leadership or seeking leadership in a political party, or already an elected official, you have to have broader ideas and policies for jobs than just increasing minimum wage.

Even if we accept that the reason white working class voted for trump is solely coz of jobs, their main concern wasn’t they’re not getting $15 per hour, it’s they’re losing their jobs all together and they’re not getting them back. Yet Sanders economic populism, like Trump’s economic nationalism, has given lots of platitudes but still has no real policy answer to that.

Right now, we are also dramatically losing jobs that pay by the hour to automation, especially in retail and fast food restaurants, jobs mostly held by women and working class of color. Nothing, even platitudes, is given to address that. By the time we have $15 minimum wage, there won’t be anymore hourly jobs to take.

Economic populism that caters to white working class by default doesn’t transfer to benefit everyone else also, it in fact leaves the most vulnerable behind and keeps people of color invisible.

Sanders and any democratic leader can’t talk about jobs by paying platitudes to white working class at the expense of ignoring working class of color and women, because then they’re intentionally ignoring their own base who demand leadership that addresses and prioritize their economic concerns as well, and leadership that doesn’t treat social issues as secondary issues and in silos.

anonymous asked:

Need sleep induce me into a month long coma

The linear function is popular in economics. It is attractive because it is simple and easy to handle mathematically. It has many important applications.

Linear functions are those whose graph is a straight line.

A linear function has the following form

y = f(x) = a + bx

A linear function has one independent variable and one dependent variable. The independent variable is x and the dependent variable is y.

a is the constant term or the y intercept. It is the value of the dependent variable when x = 0.

b is the coefficient of the independent variable. It is also known as the slope and gives the rate of change of the dependent variable.

anonymous asked:

Could you clearly explain what the term neoliberalism actually means? Because it is used so often to describe such a variety of things but always in a vague manner

Neoliberalism, as I and others talk about it, is a broad ideology that really started becoming popular in political, economic, and governmental circles in the 1970’s and reached its peak in global popularity in the 1980’s. It describes the political paradigm we are in right now, the political conditions of modern society. As the name suggests, it calls for a revitalization of the classical liberal view of economic policy. Concretely, this means free trade, low taxes, deregulation, privatization, and balanced budgets.

This post is going to shortly explain the neoliberal story as it took place in America. I only mention the experiences in other nations at the end for brevity, relevance to my followers and I, and because I don’t understand them as well as I understand America’s.


Neoliberalism emerged as a reaction to the Keynesian welfare state politics that had become popular in the West. In the 1970’s, the American economy was experiencing a phenomenon called “stagflation”- simultaneous stagnation and inflation- that the old-school Keynesians who had been the dominant group in American economics had believed to be impossible for any extended period of time. In the intellectual gap their failure left, economists like Milton Friedman made the case not only for a different approach to monetary policy in order to solve stagflation, but also for the idea that many forms of governmental involvement in the economy being harmful. Others, like James Buchanan, made the case to the economics profession that government bureaucrats acted in selfish self-interest, not the public interest, and thus that policy prescriptions should be much more cautious in calling for governmental solutions to economic issues.

At the same time, businesses began to be more aggressive in asserting their interests in politics. This development was prompted in part by soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. writing a memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971 arguing that “the American economic system is under attack” from progressive critics of big business, and that the business community should fight back. A number of conservative and libertarian think tanks and advocacy organizations were created and expanded in order to make the intellectual case for “freer” capitalism, including the Heritage Foundation (1973), the Cato Institute (1974), and the American Enterprise Institute (founded in 1938 but became influential during the 1970′s).

Take all of these trends, throw in increased public skepticism of government after Vietnam and Watergate, and you have a recipe for fundamental political change.

Between the economic disarray, the public distrust, and both intellectual and financial support for an alternative to post-war welfare statism, a new ideology became dominant in the political sphere. This ideology was encapsulated by Ronald Reagan, who summed it up perfectly with his famous quote: “in this current crisis, government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem.”

That’s is standard conservative fare today, but we forget how radical both that message and Reagan himself were at the time. I’ve noted before that, even at the time of his election, Reagan was seen by some as too far right to win. The last (elected) Republican president before him, Nixon, created the EPA, OSHA, and a number of other progressive programs. He also called for healthcare reform even stronger than Obamacare, and an expansion of welfare, the latter of which was the inspiration for the Earned Income Tax Credit, passed shortly after he left office. Parts of Nixon’s economic agenda (but not many other parts of his agenda, I should note) were noticeably left-wing, so much so that one journalist at the time noted that he left the Democrats having to resort to “metooism.”

But Nixon was simply responding to political pressures from the left, the same pressures that had forced LBJ’s hand with civil rights legislation and the war on poverty. In the late 1970’s, those pressures began to be outweighed by increasing pressure from businesses in the direction of neoliberalism. This started under Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the cautious deregulation of airlines and the trucking industry. However, it was Reagan who truly delivered the neoliberal agenda in America and institutionalized it into government.

The Reagan era also saw the start of the growth in importance of campaign donations. Republicans had not only a strong base of think tanks to provide them with a network of intellectual support, they also had far more donations from the corporate interests they were serving. Congressional Republicans beat their Democratic counterparts in campaign expenditures in every election year from 1976-1992.

Traditionally, Democrats had relied on unions as a critical source of both campaign donations and organizational support. With union strength declining (thanks, in part, to attacks by the Reagan administration), the Democrats were being totally outgunned. Recognizing that the game has changed, a number of Democrats (including one Bill Clinton) joined together in the Democratic Leadership Council with the stated goal of dragging the Democratic Party to the right and boosting campaign contributions. They succeeded. When Clinton eventually won the presidency, he cemented neoliberalism as the law of the land by making it clear that the Democrats would not challenge the fundamental new doctrine of limited government involvement in many parts of the economy, and as a result made the Democrats competitive again. (Read Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson’s “Winner-Take-All Politics” and Thomas Ferguson and Joel Roger’s “Right Turn” for more on this issue).

Instead of challenging the entirety of Reagan’s assertion of government as problem, Clinton espoused a “third way” ideology: in his second inauguration, Clinton said that “Government is not the problem, and Government is not the solution. We—the American people—we are the solution.” Though he made concessions to left-liberal voters with things like mild tax hikes on the wealthy, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Family Medical Leave Act, he continued the neoliberal march of rolling back progressive achievements through the deregulation of Wall Street, conservative reform of welfare, NAFTA, and gutting public housing.

Clinton himself was aware of the way that American politics was moving to the right, and he was sometimes frustrated with it. Allegedly, he once entered a meeting in the Oval Office complaining:

Where are all the Democrats? I hope you’re all aware we’re all Eisenhower Republicans. We’re Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn’t that great?

But he didn’t really do anything to slow the process. Most of the Democratic Party accepts their role doing nothing more than, to borrow a phrase from Roberto Unger, “to put a softer face on the agenda of their conservative opponents.” They’re there to make things a bit better for the little guy here and there, but never to fundamentally shake up the political-economic system in any way. This is why people will refer to many Democrats as neoliberals even when they don’t literally advocate for a “free market.”

As a result, the Republicans continued to push further right under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. The Democrats started to dig their heels in and push back a little for the first time during the later part of the George W. Bush administration as his (and the wars’) approval ratings sank, and they now seem to have stabilized more or less. An increasingly loud progressive wing of the party continues to push for the type of reforms that would have been center-left in the 1960’s, but the party establishment is now fine just holding on to ideological territory to the right of where it was several decades ago.

With the establishment of both parties accepting neoliberal ideology, it achieved status as what Antonio Gramsci called “cultural hegemony”: because the most powerful class of America accepted it as fact, it was instilled into the American consciousness as “common sense” that can’t be seriously challenged. Ex.) “You want to raise taxes to pay for universal healthcare? That’s ridiculous, everyone knows taxes need to be cut, even the Democrats want tax cuts for the middle class!,” “Everyone agrees there’s too much regulation today,” etc.

But things are changing. What we’re seeing now in this election is the collapse of neoliberalism’s hegemony. Republican elites took neoliberalism being their root organizing principle for granted while running campaigns utilizing dog whistle racism (that’s a whole post in itself), never realizing that they were attracting a base of voters who hated immigrants a lot more than regulation. The Republicans have drifted so far to the right that unabashed nationalists like Trump can now take the lead of the party, even though he’s running on racist xenophobia and protectionism that are in conflict with neoliberal ideals. The Tea Party was the first hiccup, and Trump is the new one. The GOP’s electoral strategy is coming back to haunt them.

Even during their neoliberalization, the Democrats always had a left-wing occupied by social democrats who wanted to continue the progress that was abandoned in the late 70’s. They were empowered by both opposition to the Iraq War late in the Bush era and the subsequent economic crash that occurred as a result of neoliberal deregulation of the finance sector. Obama ran as a semi-progressive but governed as a standard Democrat who wanted no fundamental changes (Obamacare instead of single-payer, Dodd-Frank instead of reshaping the finance system, etc.), leaving progressive disappointment and frustration to rise to the surface again once a primary was held to determine who would be the Democratic candidate after Obama. Thus, the Bernie phenomenon.

I think that the collapse of neoliberalism is embedded in the formula of neoliberalism itself, very similar to Marxist views about how capitalism creates its own life-threatening crises (which, I should clarify, I don’t believe). Neoliberal globalization results in devastating deindustrialization in blue collar parts of America, leaving a class of people unemployed and feeling totally forgotten by their government, especially since government aid to the poor is often seen as shameful in a hyperindividualist neoliberal environment. This prompts an inevitable political reaction. The center-left (ex. Clinton) and center-right (ex. Jeb Bush) sing the praises of neoliberal globalization, the left (ex. Sanders) vigorously attacks the “neoliberal” part, and the far-right vigorously attacks the “globalization” part (ex. Trump). If you can’t tell, my position on the left leaves me disliking neoliberalism and believing that the far-right’s disdain for all forms of globalization is a distraction and misidentification of the root issue, using foreigners and people of color as scapegoats.

A number of other industrialized countries have underwent neoliberalization on roughly the same time frame and are now experiencing similar backlashes: The U.K., neoliberalized under Thatcher, now has UKIP, Jeremy Corbyn, and social democratic Scottish nationalists. France has the National Front. Germany has the AfD and Pegida. New Zealand has New Zealand First. Sweden has the Sweden Democrats. Spain has Podemos. Neoliberalism was pushed on much of Latin America through the “Washington Consensus” doctrine of the U.S. government and international finance organizations like the IMF, leading to a revitalization of Latin American left-populism in many countries.

There are exceptions of course: Australia, weirdly enough, doesn’t have as much far-right or far-left activity as the other nations, as far as I’m aware. Mexican politics don’t have very strong far-right and far-left forces either right now, though the Zapatista movement was undoubtably the type of response I’m talking about. Russian politics are odd enough that it’s kinda hard to determine whether what’s going on there is the result of their neoliberal shock therapy after the fall of the USSR or not.

Regardless, the only countries where neoliberalism has had serious economic success are nations with authoritarian political systems that can suppress dissent: neoliberalism was forced upon the people of Chile under the brutal rule of Pinochet, and China underwent large scale economic liberalization under the brutal rule of Deng. For all of the other problems that may have occurred, both resulted in astonishing economic growth. Regardless, these experiences seem to directly conflict with the classical liberal argument of a strong correlation between a laissez-faire economy and political democracy, at least at all points on the curve.

This post is already way too long, and I’ve probably tried to cover too much, but the concept of neoliberalism is so important to understanding our modern world that I feel like all of this is important to cover.

(disclaimer: This series will be ongoing and indefinitely open to new posts and new suggestions for topics. A table of contents is available and kept up-to-date as new posts are added. As with all advice on culture, if you are planning on basing your own fictional culture off an existing culture, please do extensive research into anthropology and discussions from people of the culture. Avoid direct appropriation and utilize only for inspirational purposes.)

Part 5: Incorporating Culture Into Setting

Setting is very rarely considered to be an aspect impacted by culture. It’s often a passive backdrop for the action. Instead of thinking in terms of 2D paintings, it’s time to start thinking in 3D. Once you start thinking of your setting as interactive, you can begin integrating culture into the surroundings. Even better, start thinking of your setting in terms of 5D to really bring your setting into the forefront and integrate it with culture. Think of your setting as though you’re walking through an old, run-down tenament or apartment building. That’s not a flat location, that’s an experience. You can’t talk about simply what you saw to fully impart what that place is like.

Besides the added benefit of being good writing practice, writing with all five senses also portrays culture. Think about food–what things are part of a typical meal become a cultural experience, right? So write about what your character smells as they’re going about your setting. That’s going to let your reader in to what foods are common, and provide a more immersive experience. Even sound levels are dictated by social norms, which are part of culture, so write about what your character hears as well.

Architecture particularly is a great way to convey culture, and in terms of setting, it’s one of your most powerful tools. Remember that all kinds of things can influence architectural details in buildings: religion, government, economics, popular trends within your culture’s arts. Even the interior features will portray culture. Do people have a certain color or color intensity preference? In Sweden, orange is a very popular color for anyone to wear; in the US, it’s considered bright and an unusual choice, and it’s often relegated to those with darker skin. (Obviously, fashion trends change from year to year, but in general, pure orange is a color Americans tend to shy away from.)

Consider this: The separation of church and state is reflected in the architecture of the US’s homes and businesses. Despite the fact my office building used to be a church, the stained glass windows have been built over on the inside. While still visible externally, they were deemed inappropriate to the goings-on of the building’s new, non-religiously affiliated tenants since stained glass is associated most often with cathedrals and churches. On the other hand, the Hindu religion’s vaastu shastra dictates specific ways buildings are to be laid out–all buildings, any buildings–because Hinduism is a religion that impacts life and culture as a whole.

A mistake that I’ve seen is the tendency to ignore geographical distance for cultural variation, especially in terms of setting and architecture. Just as what a “normal” neighborhood in Idaho

differs from a “normal” neighborhood in Pennsylvania

differs from a “normal” neighborhood in Galilee, Israel,

so will architecture differ across your world. Not only between countries and cultures (America to Israel), but also internally (Idaho to Pennsylvania), geographical distance will impact how much cultural diffusion there is. The less centralized and compact your culture, the more diffusion. This diffusion will vary where you’re looking both in types or diffusion and amounts.

Here’s a tip: Talk about what you character sees and is surrounded by. Even when your character feels it’s all normal, show your audience what normal looks like. Have your character travel and remark on how different it is and how “normal” it seems for the locals.

Next up: Culture in character!

yes-siree-dodd  asked:

What are some good books to read on economics?

Here is my ‘economics’ shelf. I recommend all of these.

I apologize for the long post, and I hyperlinked when possible to the tag for my blog for each book (where I’ve posted excerpts and quotes so you can get an idea of the book). I think basically your question is answered in this first paragraph I’ve block-quoted. Everything else just just extra.

Books on Economics in General:

How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes and Economics in One Lesson are good introductory overviews about economics and economic principles in general. The former can be read in like an hour. The Bastiat Collection brings together essays from the great economist Frederic Bastiat which, despite being well over a century old are extremely easily read and impart a lot of economic wisdom. A lot of his stuff can be found online for free as well. Also Economic Controversies, while intimidating in it’s size (about 900 pages) and admittedly more difficult than the previously mentioned books, is still highly readable and will teach you an immense amount of economics. The economic journal articles contained in it cover the method of economics, the nature of economics, taxation, money, and just about every other controversy of economics. 

*

The rest are on more specific topics. Are the Rich Necessary? teaches a good deal of basic economic concepts in a very easily readable way by going through policy and popular economics issues. The kind of stuff you hear in everyday life and on tv a lot.

The Economics of Liberty and Making Economic Sense are both collections of very short Op-Ed sized pieces dealing with various economics and policy topics (trade, taxes, regulations, etc). There’s a ton of good stuff in there and they both cover a wide range of economic issues and questions.

Books on money and monetary policy I recommend are End the Fed, What has Government done to Our Money? (which is an essay really), The Gold Standard: Perspectives in the Austrian School (which is a collection of essays), The Inflation Crisis and How to Resolve It, and The Ethics of Money Production. Again, all of these are very easy. Nothing intimidating about them, but you’ll learn a lot.

Economic Facts and Fallacies uses economic concepts and statistical data to bust a lot of economic myths we hear these days (gender pay gap, income inequality stats, etc) . Markets and Minorities and Race and Economics do the same with regards to racial issues in economic policy (affirmative action, discrimination, the economic lot of minorities, etc). Depression, War, and Cold War is a collection of scholarly essays which again do a great deal in the way of dispelling common myths–the main myths busted in these essays are about the efficacy of the new deal and world war two in ending the great depression.

The Government Against the Economy and all of the books pictured above by Ludwig von Mises are all excellent and highly profitable reads about the market process and the destructive nature of various kinds of government intervention in the market.

The Conquest of Poverty and Man Vs. The Welfare State are great books using economics to examine how best to help the poorest in a given society, and how government programs have hindered that effort.

Where Keynes went Wrong and The Failure of the New Economics both are refutations of ‘Keynesian Economics’, which is currently the most influential brand of economics in all the central banks and government bureaus of the Earth. The former is a much easier read than the latter, but both are still no problem and very profitable reads.

Meltdown explains the ‘Austrian’ theory of the business  cycle and specifically applies it to the 2008 housing boom and bust. This is another one that you can read in a day and you’ll learn a lot from it.

Thanks to the Mises Institute a lot of these books are available free online through a google search and in print for very cheap. Thanks so much for asking for my input I appreciate that more than you know.

Triad Verse FAQ

Hey guys! For awhile now, I’ve been meaning to write something to replace the old primer post. Below you’ll find answers to the most frequently asked questions about triad verse. These headcanons were developed by a small group of people, so if, during thinking about or writing in triad verse, you come to different answers, feel free to develop your own version of Triad Verse.

 

What is Triad Verse?

Triad Verse is an alteration of an existing fandom universe such that the majority of human cultures normalize triad relationships (those between three people), rather than couples. Couples are seen as “incomplete” and in many places are unable to get married without a third partner.

Keep reading

Imagine that toy companies in Paris have decided to create toy lines based off of Paris’s more popular akuma. Imagine little kids playing with akuma action figures and creating aesthetics based off of their favorite villains.

This is the wrong time to dismiss the role racism played in Donald Trump’s win.

Contrary to the popular narrative, economic anxiety was not the main reason white Trump voters cast ballots for the president-elect. Those who listed the economy as their top concern voted for Clinton at a rate of 52% compared with Trump’s 42%, according to exit polls published by the New York Times. Of the four priorities given as options by the pollsters, Trump voters on average ranked immigration and terrorism — both starkly racialized issues in the U.S. — above America’s financial state. 

In case after case, instead of figuring out how to ensure stable and livable jobs and wages for these workers, GOP leaders have scapegoated black welfare mooches and “illegals” coming from Mexico, whom they accuse of stealing jobs and committing crimes. Rather than reject this race-baiting, white Americans have been consistently willing to accept these explanations.

The result has been a deep entangling of economic anxiety with racial anxiety. There is no hard line between the two, as many today would suggest. …

If anything, the shift in the debate over whether Trump supporters were guided by racism seems more rooted in a desire to avoid confronting racism. You could argue that calling these people racist hurts their feelings and will make it harder to convince them not to vote for candidates like Trump in the future. This may be true, but it’s also dishonest about the dynamics at play. If we want to create a society where we flatter and indulge people into voting how we want, avoiding calling out their “racism” when it arises may be a good idea. But if we want to address the real root of the problem, we’ll have reckon with more uncomfortable truths.

— Zak Cheney-Rice, Read the full op-ed                          follow @the-movemnt

girlyfolk  asked:

Yo, Farah. I don't know how knowledgable you are re: Greek politics, but I'm interested in your take re: the rise of a Golden Dawn. Fascist groups tend to grow popular in times of economic hardship, so I can understand their popularity in that sense. But wrt to their racial politics: do many Greeks align themselves with whiteness, or only when to contrast themselves against darker groups?

I am not an expert in this field. Evelyn — former tumblr user spittingonhegel/thestolencaryatid — is, and you can still find a lot of her posts and resources in my Greece tag.

In fact, I would urge anyone who wants to learn more about Greece, its history, and, to address the first part of your ask, the rise of Golden Dawn to read Evelyn’s latest article

Here’s what I do know, both from my own findings and from following Evelyn’s research for such a long time: Greeks have always been in a precarious and misunderstood position, in that no one knows how to categorize them or quite understands where Greece fits in. My mother’s college textbook from the late ’70s included Greece in a map of the Middle East; it wasn’t until 1981 that Greece was forced to join the European Union. We have a very warped view of Western Civilization™  because Germanic scholars have appropriated Greekness for centuries, effectively bleaching and antiquating it to benefit their own Eurocentric (read: Aryan) enterprises.

As far as the racialization of Greeks goes — Germans and other Western Europeans enjoy othering Greeks. My mother’s side of the family is Greek, and I’ve witnessed a lot of compulsory assimilation, namely in the form of anglicizing surnames, giving up on the mother tongue and Eastern orthodoxies, and identifying as “Western European.” My grandfather is often mistaken for being Mexican, but he still thinks he’s connected to Western Europe. As someone who’s also Iranian, I actually see a lot of similarities between Greeks and Iranians (“Persians”), especially in their willingness to align themselves with Western Europeans, whom many of them have been brainwashed to believe are “superior” to the Strange Oriental Peoples of the East™.

We must stop placating these manipulative, neoimperial regimes. We must decolonize ourselves and end these insidious, cancerous allegiances to white-supremacist projects. 

I hope this helps. 

anonymous asked:

Even with the EU there are still many fractions in Europe. I feel that south Europeans face discriminatory rhetoric from central and northern countries. (Merkel was saying today that Portugal has too many people with degrees, when we're below the EU average and Germany has many more. I feel they want to keep us uneducated. Same when northern tourists complain we should do things like they do and look down on us. ) I used to feel very European, but I gradually feel just South European. :/

I get what you mean. I can see the EU sure hasn’t guaranteed some sort of European identity even amongst Europeans who would be racialised as white in the US. You can’t surmount more than 1000 years of infighting, cultural, historical and geopolitical faultlines so easily. What this anon is referring to sounds very much like how during the entire Eurozone crisis, there was a lot of stereotyping that Southern Europeans were “lazy” “undisciplined” and fiscally irresponsible partiers who took siestas, compared to the efficient and fiscally disciplined Northern Europeans. (Note: this has very, very similar undertones to the “lazy savage” stereotype applied to Africans).

Sure……nobody in the EU has gone to war with each other since WW2 ended. But 50 years vs 2000+ years of fighting? One should note how European integration has come under strain recently thanks to the Eurozone crisis and poor economic conditions in various countries struggling with austerity measures. There is a lot of animosity about “German domination” too because Germany is the most powerful EU country- a lot of anti-austerity protesters likened the measures to the Nazi occupation of Europe. Not to mention Europe seems to have a trend where nationalism and far right parties gain a lot of popularity during poor economic times.

Just recently a right wing UK politician said that it was different if a German family moved next door, than if it were Romanians, because there was a difference in “quality”. Nobody is denying that intra-European immigration poses challenges but indeed a lot of these parties are pretty racist and using the opportunity to justify racist rhetoric. Many prominent parties that have won seats in the EU Parliament have neo-Nazi links, like the Golden Dawn.