Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k
But notice, so what this means is having the eco-fiscal policy means that all of these countries have a limited amount of money. They can't spend to get out of crisis. They have to have the same fiscal policy for all countries. This is bad for small countries more than for the big ones.
But secondly, now this also means that you blame the EU for like the European Central Bank for the bad stuff that happens because notice that all politicians now have the incentive to blame the European Central Bank for everything bad that's happening, right?
Notice, like this is important for the youth for multiple reasons. Number one, this gives you less unity in times of crisis, which is important to get out of the crisis. Secondly, like you can get, like, you can get the feeling the EU is less democratic, that it's made for the wealthy countries and everything else.
But why is this, what are the impacts of this? Number one, people tend to vote for more, like, anti-EU politicians and everything else. Secondly, it's hard to get compromise on many important things which are important to crisis and everything else.
You also get like, less stable EU which is important to get out of the crisis and everything else, but also finally you can get more things such as Brexit and everything else. This is something that shakes the union. It's very bad.
Notice that this debate takes place in wealthy and good countries and places like the EU. We think it's very bad for that. In every other aspect of the debate, it's much a wash. Thank you. Enjoy.
</mo>
<gw>
Okay, I'm going to do my two. I'm going to first respond to CO, then I'm going to explain why we also think we take it above OO, and lastly, I'm going to explain why we think that we make a more significant contribution to the debate than OG.
Let's begin with CO and importantly, the thing about long-term political budgeting. Crucially, as they explained, if politicians don't want to do these projects because they have nothing to gain, then they're very unlikely to exist to begin with and are likely very, very rare. This means this is, to begin with, a very small impact.
Because they have nothing to gain. Even if a budget is large and larger than it would be in a crisis, it is never infinite. Politicians are still prioritizing where they dedicate the budget and what they want to budget more or less, and they will always prioritize what they have to gain from and what will gain them some sort of political traction and make them look good to the public.
This means that they are very rarely going to be dedicating significant amounts of the budget to these sorts of long-term projects. At the end of the day, you can't lose what you never had, and you can't cut what you never budgeted to begin with. If any gets cut here, it is very small and the impacts are insignificant.
Next, the only issue of the ECB and euro instability. ECB already applies universal policies on the monetary stage, meaning already states can say, oh, the ECB is applying to us a monetary policy that is relevant to a different country within the EU and that is why we are currently suffering and we're unhappy about this.
We don't know why suddenly giving them also the fiscal is significant because given especially that the vast majority of the time, these are excuses being used by politicians who are already anti-EU trying to gain public traction. This means they don't need another excuse. One of these is sufficient, especially given that again the public doesn't have an enormous understanding of the difference between monetary and fiscal policies and it's unlikely that if you say wait, they're not just controlling us monetarily.
They're also controlling us fiscally. Now they get way more angry than they used to be about the fact that they're telling us how curved our bananas can be. Now let's move on to opening opposition. What do we think we get from opening opposition? First, get this idea that, oh, democratic independence and people need to be able to control their own fate and make their own decisions.
We think that this is less important than the debate for a number of reasons. But to begin with, they have a limited ability to control it. A, because they have limited knowledge of these sorts of policies and what they would like to prefer and they are not voting based purely on this and they are not understanding fully what the policies that their future politicians are going to enact.
Very often politicians don't even state what their explicitly exactly what their monetary policy looks like. But it's sorry, fiscal policy looks like. Second, even if they had stated their fiscal policy during the election, this is not their crisis fiscal policy. The election happened pre-crisis and voters don't elect politicians based on how they are going to have fiscal policy during a crisis.
So, they didn't express any preference for this specific issue. Third, the majority would simply prioritize exiting the crisis themselves because this has a significantly greater effect. And fourth, because self-determination, which is what you're looking for, people being able to decide upon their own fate, is dependent on financial independence, both in your ability to be self-determinant in your day-to-day life and your ability to make decisions and not being dependent on other people supporting you financially in all these things. Which means that you need a stronger economy in order to begin with to be able to do this and in your ability to vote and be an informed voter and dedicate time to looking into politicians and voting for those that you prefer.
Therefore, an economic crisis harms people's self-determination significantly more than who is making the decision to get out of the crisis. So long as we are getting out of the crisis faster, that is what is best for their independence. Next, we're told, and they state this again to us in our POI that governments are well incentivized and they're going to make perfectly fine decisions on public finance policies.
The as on to respond to this, this is simply irrelevant to our case. We're probably happy with you to give us this rebuttal to OG but we don't care if governments would most of the time make decent policies. What we care about is that A, the differences in policies that they would make from the banks are probably insignificant, but the way the public would view this, the amount of cooperation they would have, and the amount of security in the future of the economy that both individuals and corporations would have significantly changes.
So, let's move on and why we think that we contribute significantly more than OG to this debate. But lastly, but first, yes, let's take opening.
<poi>
Central banking, unpopular decisions like decreasing the availability of stimulus checks, the cynicism CG states about government will cross the flight to the bank and will double because they're less proximate to people; your own analysis refutes itself.
</poi>
But precisely because they're less proximate to people, then it's a lot harder to harbor public anger towards them. People very rarely know who they even are or what they stand for or understand that it is a central bank making decisions. The average person on the street has no idea that the central bank even determines the interest rate or what that means or how that is affecting them financially.
What they do know is politicians make decisions; it is reported on in all the media. Everybody sees it. Everybody is discussing it. The opposition party has a very large incentive to say that the decision that they have made is very bad and that what they are doing is wrong, and it's a lot more likely that the public notices this, gets angry about it, and is concerned by it.
Also, specifically on the issue of corporations trusting in the banks as opposed to government. Corporations simply, if they are the same, I don't know, white privileged, conservative people that are managing the bank, which because largely the same people would be succeeding in both fields, they also are just more likely to be trusting in the bank because they see them as having the same sorts of policies that they would have if they were in their position.
We just think that these people that are approximate to the banks trust them and the people who aren't approximate to the banks don't see them and don't notice as much and don't have the same reason to distrust. Okay, so why do we think we take it above OG? OG say themselves at the beginning of their framing that nothing in their case changes if the governments and banks are enacting similar policies.


The best reason to give it in cases where the government does cooperate and set policies based on recommendations by the bank and why we should still have the motion is, I quote, why not? So we show a significant improvement in the stability and recovery simply by changing the actor who is enacting the policy to one who receives a lot more trust by both the public and corporations.


Both of these prevent reactionary behaviors such as people stopping their spending because they believe they won't have money tomorrow or withdrawing from their savings accounts because they think that their interest rate is bound to change and they're worried that they're going to lose all their money. Or corporations withdrawing from the states because they think that it is no longer going to be viable and it is better to cut their losses now than to slowly start wasting money because they're still producing at their factories but nobody's buying anymore.
Or people not buying because they're afraid. All of these things are very, very significant. And they cause the market to fall further and the crisis to get worse, not better. Regardless of the policies being enacted. We think this is likely a large number of the cases that happen in the world. Because most of the time the banks and the government do have an incentive to cooperate, and ministers are mostly advised by experts from the bank itself and often listen to this sort of advice and follow it. So we think that we just impact many more instances. But also note that as Rachel stated, regardless of mild fluctuations in the quality of the policy, the effects on the economy of people buying and selling and investment behavior is a lot greater.
There's a greater room for variance. People can either send nothing or all of their money at once based on what they think is about to happen. Companies can leave entirely. We think these are greater impacts and happen in all cases. Please propose. Thank you very much for that speech.
</gw>
<ow>
Okay. Georgia knows about sports. I know about economics. Let's do this. What are the responses why you get and why they don't matter in this debate?
First, they tell us about the long-term projects. Oh, look, they don't have these incentives in the status quo to do it in time of crisis. They wouldn't do it anywhere or that would be significant. Like, notice that in order to realize that this is simply not true, you just have to live in reality. In times of crisis, countries all that they still, in the majority of cases, they still build this stuff, they build highways and so on, all of that still stands. But notice that even, if they, they in the status quo, they prioritize the short term and we agree to a larger extent they do. Notice that still they want to get elected even after that, like they want to stay long term in power. So there is still some incentive to build that port, to build that highway and so on.
Secondly, you probably need to spend at least somewhat a political capital to actually cancel a project. So when do you cancel a project? When you have a higher priority. Now, the government teams want to in times of crisis to block off the limit to your budget.


So, what are you going to cut first? You're going to cut first, the things that are somewhat of a priority and those are these things that you need in the long term, like Georgia tells you, you need them to actually prosper. You need them to build out the infrastructure, you need that in order to keep your companies alive in the next five years, and so on.
So that's the thing that you're going to cut; you're not going to cut them, you're not going to cut any of that. You notice that we don't even have to, have to do that much analysis because OG proves us that politicians are short-termists. We say that when we limit them, they just become more short-termists.


Okay, what else do they tell us? Then the closing team tells us, oh look, the ECB does monetary policy but fiscal policy would not change that much in the way that people view it. Notice, what is monetary policy? Setting interest rates, currency selling, and buying. What a connection.
Like and even since the connection is not that strong, at least in the way to the everyday citizen, it's still a major talking point for the people that hate the EU and so on. But what is fiscal policy and why is it so much closer to people? Fiscal policy limits how much you can spend.
That means how much money in total goes to your hospitals, how much goes to roads, how much goes to your education, how much your teachers are paid, why it will be a roaring cry. If you want to kill the EU, this is a good motion to do it. Congratulations.
Like notice, can you imagine how powerful a tool that could be? If they could say both politicians in power could say, look, we would live good lives but they don't give us enough money to pay our teachers well, to pay our everyday citizens, to give healthcare and so on, and for, and how frustrated the people would feel. The EU already lost quite a significant member and in many states, it is not that popular. There is support for leaving the EU at the status quo; that's hard to do. But if you change this, if you make sure that in the following years, every political psychopathicians are talking about how the EU is preventing their hospitals from being built, how the ECB is doing that.
How the Bureau is doing that? You're going to get, we're not going to say everyone's going to leave the EU. Some of them probably will. The countries that were in the status quo, it's unstable. And even if you all stay in the EU, unity is so much more important when you have all these nationalistic anti-EU politicians.
You get a consensus on how to behave against Russia, energy supply, all of these things, sanctions, no consensus. Do you get like how do you form relief funds? All of that. When you have all these people, which means you get first much worse policy. Second, you get much more instability.
Which even by itself is bad since it means that more investors will be dropping the euro. It means that it will be harder to borrow European country and so on. Which means all of these things make it so much worse. Which means that we get a lot worse lives for all these people for 500 million people that live in the European Union.
This is very important since in most countries on this planet, the politicians have vast influence on the central bank where we're talking about Serbia. We're talking about Russia, China, Central Asia, South America. So this debate, 70% of this debate to 80% happens actually in the European Union.
So that’s why this is a major stakeholder and that's why it's so important. Especially when the others don’t manage to prove their significant impacts. And what is that, even the politicians, even if it's a reasonable amount or whatever.
I'm going to give you right now, reasons why it probably will be a lower estimate. Contrary to three reasons, I'm going to give you more. Like firstly, these people working in central banks, they have a bias towards something. They like it's mainstream economics and the way they have a bias to reduce spending.
Secondly, there are targets of lobbying often; like this is not a perfect system even in very rich countries. Which makes it far more likely that companies and individuals are going to lobby for lower taxes, less spending in order to preserve their own wealth.
Thirdly, very often after their potential bank jobs, they often go into the private sector to work at companies that have a vested interest in them reducing spending. So that's why you're probably going to get worse off.
Okay, let's see what's in the CG brings us, CG brings us more trust into the government. In most of the world, these things are viewed by people and the institutions as most of the same. Even in these countries like notice that for all the reasons we give you, you're probably not going to trust the central bank so much more especially since they are chosen by the government.
So we all know this is true. Plus many other things affect how these things change like supply chain changes, their corporations, I think things change and so on. I'm going to give you a why to OG.
<poi>
So during the COVID crisis, the ECB spent a bunch of money on quantitative easing because they knew spending was needed.
They're not inherently opposed to it.
</poi>
Thank you, Martha. Thank you. Thank you. Great, great, great. You know what? Even though that for many countries, it's very dubious if it, you know. Oftentimes, there are problems with allocation, problems with all these different things and oftentimes in the past, the ECB has not spent that much.
Oftentimes, there was pressure for austerity for things that didn't work. This what Georgia tells you, this is going to fuck over, not small countries, like physically small underdeveloped countries that need to build up more in order to build up their infrastructure.
Countries like Greece, like Bulgaria, like the Czech Republic, like so on, like Croatia. Those are the countries that are going to have their spending limited more for all the reasons Georgia tells you. Sometimes, even if you prove that sometimes central banks behave reasonably, we see that probably sometimes, like in the past with Greece, they're not going to behave like that.
And notice that many of our, like the majority of our case stands even if they're completely rational, completely they give reasonable because politicians are still going to blame them because they're going to say that they are regulating all that. That's how we crash actually Europe.
That's how we get less European unity. We don't get enough spending in underdeveloped European countries that need to prosper because they need all these things. So, if you want to ruin the lives of 400 to 500 million people, congratulations, opening government. You found a great way to do it. Is Russia paying you? Be honest, Malta.
</ow>
<PM>
Everything is a mental illness, nothing is. We think this delegitimizes the way people perceive illnesses and harms the most vulnerable. Two things in my speech, First of all, why is it likely to harm people in a way that affect me? Why does this delegitimize people who do have illnesses? Why does this make poor people not why does this make people clog up the system and why is it likely to destroy everyday relation impacts? Second, societal level impacts. The entire academic field of psychology takes a huge hit in legitimacy and reduces the amount of funding and trust that people have in it in the first place. First, note by reasons. First, we'd go through these issues and know that they have an actual illness, are often in a spectrum. Some people have extremely serious problems, some people have weaker levels of frustration and struggle in their life. And often, when you're just upset quite a bit, it's not really an illness. For example, you don't get depression every time a family member dies. But often can we feel make you upset for many months at a time. At that point, there are things that are emotions that are not actually illnesses in the first place. What happens to people with mental illnesses when people who are safe, frustrated about the cleanliness of their room, say that they have OCD? Three things, for people have less empathy for them and this is the reason why. People think that they have an explanation and understanding of what this mental illness feels like. They think that they know what depression feels like because they themselves have felt some parts of depression because they just said I am depressed. I was sad at a certain time. They don't recognize the difference between that and depression. They think that their boyfriend was kind of an asshole to them as a toxic relationship and they don't think that the other person has anything that's significantly higher than them. Hence, they are less likely to accept the fact that this person is suffered much more you can imagine and hence, have much less empathy in bandwidth to deal with their issues. This means let's discussions, let's care for this person, let's concern about the issues in the first place. But second, they think they understand it already. They think they know how to solve it. This is your parents thinking that because you are feeling sad and you think you have depression, actually it was when they were young and they were also upset and saw a mental illness. It's just you not being hardworking enough and you have a solution. The difference is, at the point you start using these terms in your everyday life. People who are currently liberalizing started because they are feeling similar experiences, they also understand this. The second reason is often that this spreads into everyday vernacular and starts looking normal to people. Which reduces the urgency to attach to these terms in the first place. Often this means that you think that the urgency of someone having depression, the urgency of something being toxic is not as high. Because you’ve seen it, you saw it often. It's diffuse so-called vocabulary. It becomes very difficult to determine who actually is. The same thing happens now and we don't have a signaling mechanism finding the people who are more silly. But third, before that ah closing opposition quickly.
<poi>
So, there is a premise that you don't analyze. Why does people saying this will lead to negative outcomes to people who have actual problems in their head because presumably they can opt out, not care, and they can just continue with their lives.
</poi>
Of course, they can't opt out. I just told you it's an everyday life. The people around them are saying it's your family doesn't take you seriously and or often because they think, oh, this is what OCD is for like four to 5 years. I've seen many people say they are OCD. Now, my son is saying it as well. Well, it's just a normal thing. It's not a real illness and people who already have it feel constantly frustrated because here's the thing I told you, right? Other people don't give a shit about them anymore because they think that they are similar to them. At the point where you think you would experience what they have, it's difficult to have the emotional bandwidth to listen to them and hear them out and the issues that they have. That means you are less likely to have special privileges to be person who genuinely needs it because they cannot focus. Because ADHD means they cannot actually write notes properly and you just think that means you not being able to listen to like your homework, podcast or something because you are watching that. The third reason is this lowers the barrier of entry for expertise and reduces the need for experts. You don't trust psychologists to the point where you think you have an understanding in the first place. The difference is on our side. Often because these are seen as highly medical terms. People don't say ah, I have a fever. The second feeling slightly upset. Oh no, I have hypothermia. When they hear those words, they think I need an expert to understand these words. I need an expert to solve these problems. At the point where this becomes everyday parlance, you think that you have the barrier to entering to solve these issues and understand them. But fourth of all, increases the stigma to even speak out about this, and this is where I go into my analysis of what this affects in terms of people going into the system. There is no answer. Some people are often poor and cannot afford to go to the system and have stigma against it. Some people are often richer. They have the luxury to afford to go to the system. Hardly student groups attracy, like respondents. People who cannot afford this often will respond by justifying the fact that they do not have an illness because of this stigma uniquely because there is no urgency anymore. The alarm bells don't ring. This is important. This is unique for three first because they do not have the money so they need to justify the fact they are taking the right decision which they often know that might not be the best one. So, I can't afford it, I might as well justify in one way or the other. Second, it's because the stigma that they faced in the past where someone who has a mental illness is weaker and not strong. But third is because of their framework and mindset. So, the social narratives they have actually framed the way they view the world. So, new information they get just tends to make them believe that actually I don't really have a mental illness. Why do we break this on our side for poorer people? It's because it looks like a terrify death knell. It looks like something you have to solve right now. It is something that is a genuine threat of your actual life. This is why often poor people who think that say something like a fever or a cold which is normal. Is something that they can avoid and not go to the doctor for. But if someone says you have a risk of hypothermia, it kicks in and they say, okay, this is the point where I go to a doctor, this is the point where I seek medication. We take away that site from opposition when everyone thinks the same normal thing. People are saying and this delegitimizes the urgency before that quickly opening opposition.
<poi>
In the decades before this popularization, people stigmatized mental health as well.
</poi>
no, because if you stigmatize mental health then this can't exist in the first place. This narrative exists on both sides. When a mental health starts becoming an if, like, the thing that people care about. Notably, you can only talk about things like toxic and OCD and depression when you know that they exist and you only know that they exist the point where people are talking about it in a serious way, anyway. Also there is many other incentives to this increase. For example, like just people recognizing that it actually makes their lives worse and just the illness is becoming more popular. The field in general. You can't just take that out of history. Okay, finally, why does this destroy every relationships and harm the actual legitimacy of academia? Okay, on relationships, it harms relationships because it delegitimizes the fear of things like toxic relationships. Firstly, there's the people who are in them start to doubt themselves. They think, am I just another person who is often likely to like, like randomly call someone toxic and cut them off and the person that I am dating is likely to say things like, oh, don't call me toxic, I'm terrified, This, and that means that often you start to think of yourself as the villain when you see someone as evil person because it's such a large acquisition. It's much more easy to say things like I am angry at you or frustrated with you. Which means you are more likely to over correct. But secondly people don't take you seriously when you speak out because it looks like every other person calling each other toxic. At which point it's hard to once again signal the urgency of relationships that are toxic. Which means the people who are in diverse relationships are likely to stay there with no one talking to them. Finally the impacts of this on the academic field are that you do not respect psychologists anymore. Because they do things like make public diagnoses of individuals which you think is just irrelevant and often push things like system that over medicalized problems for everyday issues.
</PM>


<LO>
Panel, I have a confession to make. In the state of school, people often call me as someone who does have ADHD and someone who often actually involves in like over compulsive behavior. However, what the alternative is, is how they portrayed me in high school. Then, they called me weird, lost, and aloof, and I think that this is basically something that both governments need to deal with. We will always have an incentive to label specific behaviors which are outside of what we perceive as normal. And I do believe that the burden of gap is to point out why any alternative labeling will be far better. What we are going to claim is this is far better than any alternative. It actively raises the awareness of how many people are suffering from this and it actually helps people like realize that they have some of these behaviors, right? Let's first start with training, right. First of all, how is this used today, right? Because I do believe that opening up is very vague on this, right? Notice that even when we use today, the terms like OCD and ADHD very often, we still acknowledge that there is a scale of how much people are suffering from all these conditions, right? We do not even the status quo. We do not think or I do believe that like a bunch of people actually do not agree with us that everyone who suffers from OCD suffers to the same extent, right? None of us a day at the moment we have huge amount of mental health awareness. I don't think we ever in history had such huge levels of like mental health awareness. Meaning to some people like meaning to some extended people do acknowledge there is a scale between how much I suffer from ADHD probably very mild versus someone who basically struggling with this for their whole life. So there is a scale and opening government is wrong when they say that we perceive everyone who is having ADHD the same. I think this is just like very poor movements and the majority of people today do have a more women's view on this, right?


Second of all, what happens if this is not the popular terms that we use, right? First of all, we use it only most extreme cases, right? You use ADHD only when you see that someone is like truly, truly suffering from this, right? Second of all, you use other types of hyperboles to explain some of the behaviors which are outside of the norm, right? Very often, you know, core people who have ADHD as not focused, as weird, as aloof, people who do gaslighting like we call them as bad or evil, right? Or just as weirdos, right? These types of labelings will exist anywhere it was the harm of them later in my speech.


Third point in faming and then I promise, I'm going to get into arguments, right. How we actually explain what these terms means, right? And I do believe there's two levels on this, right? First of all, when we say that someone has ADHD, we acknowledge that there is a psychological explanation behind the behavior. We also do this when we call someone a gaslighter, right? We don't think this is something which is inherent to them, right? We think that very often their DNA, their chemistry, very other stuff which happened in their life made them this way. We don't perceive these behaviors as something inherent to them, right? And I do believe the alternative is to label them in a way which points out that these traits are inherent to them, right. Meaning, you generally have this less understanding for what they are doing, right? I think on our side of the house, at least for whatever we treat people do, you give up psychological explanation which makes it easy and possible to correct, right? You actually give people other chance when you say that they have ADHD and note that they are just like lazy and lack focused, right?


I think, secondly, right? When this is more common, people see it as more normal, right? If we label a bunch of people as having ADHD, we are now starting to perceive ADHD as something which is quite common in our society, right? That means to some extent that we have less stigmatized those that do have it and be, they're actually likely to support like researching and funding and investing in like solving ADHD far more because now, we actually acknowledge that this is an issue which everyone faces with on the side of the gov, right? When we believe, this is just like a small group of people and the treatment would be reserved only for the most extreme cases, right? We'll lower the incentive of the general public to get informed on this, right. To support funding of this, to get a like research this last right, and I do believe this is the rolling gaps have to stand in.


With all this being said, what are the harms of this policy? First harm, as I already said, this actually stigmatizes, that, astigmatizes people who do have ADHD and who basically who suffer anyway, right? So notice that, bunch of times, people who have, so if you are, if you're alternative is, you will only portray people who are very extreme cases of ADHD, right. Well, this will actually lead to is, first of all, I do believe that you're just like going to be less likely to employ and to give chances to people that do have these conditions, but B, right? There's going to be less need for research funding as I already said, right. Notice that on our side of the house, right. When you basically acknowledge it, like there is a group of people who are somewhere in the middle, right? Listen, bunch of people that have like ADHD or like OCD are not the most extreme ones. Bunch of them are actually in the middle, when you basically acknowledge this and you say that this is quite common, you lower the risk that very often employers feel when they basically need to do taxes to these people, right? Like very often increase the level of understanding that people have because now they don't see this as something which is an outlier. This is now a common thing, something with bunch of us have.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.