686
Zelenskiy Releases Personal Income in Transparency Push
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
686 points (97.5% liked)
World News
39161 readers
1464 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Gotta say, that's an almost aggressively reasonable salary for running an entire country,
I'd consider myself pretty well taken care of for that level of pay.
Don't forget, he was a very well known actor and comedian before.
This is what still blows me away.
A fucking actor is doing a better job running a country specifically during wartime than a typical politician.
It's fuckin embarrassing to every single person on this planet who's dealing with stupid/corrupt/inept politicians who would sell their constituents for fuckin toilet paper.
Calling him just an actor is sort of unfair to him though. He was basically Ukraine's Jon Stewart. He does a great job as a politician because he spent years satirizing them, so he knows how the sausage is made and he knows how they totally fuck up and how to avoid it. That's why he's so successful at his job.
And, I imagine, if Jon Stewart ever ran for office, he would do similarly well.
Please, I can only get so erect. I'd tune in 24/7. With popcorn.
Stewart/Colbert would be the ticket to the greatest America.
Tbf, the US tried the actor president twice, and they turned out to be the two worst presidents in modern US history, so it might not always be the best idea to elect the "outsider".
Which two?
Reagan and Trump. The former was a b-list actor before becoming governor and then president and the latter played a successful businessman in the fictional series "The Apprentice".
It's so ironic that California and New York, two beacons of progressivism have us those two turds.
Liberalism, not progressivism. There are big and important differences.
You're right about the rest though, of course.
It's both, can't have progress without liberty
Modern liberalism aka neoliberalism isn't really that much about progress, though. It's more about preserving the status quo and maybe a little Incrementalism if the owner donors allow it.
The liberties that liberals originally fought for hundreds of years ago are the floor of expected liberty now and neoliberalism is a center-right to right wing ideology.
Liberalism is a precursor to progressivism though. You can't make progress without it. You can't expect to be taken seriously this way.
In the same way as coal is a precursor to diamonds, sure. Doesn't mean that coal is useful for making jewelry today.
Like I said, you can't expect to be taken seriously this way. Deny it if you must,
Does that line ever convince anyone that you know the first thing about anything?
Because it sure isn't doing anything except making you look both ignorant and arrogant in this case 🤷
If I ever have to repeat it maybe I'll let you know. The point of it is not to convince anyone about me
Nope, just that they're not to be taken seriously if they disagree with your outdated notions of how politics work 🙄
I don't really care about your judgment at this point
Likewise, Dunning-Kruger Syndrome poster boy.
Then why the fuck are you still talking to me?
Combination of boredom and poor impulse control 🤷
Neoliberalism = liberalism I don't like
Neoliberalism is still center-right. The political spectrum in the US is so skewed to the right that center-right feels like a progressive position.
🙄
Neoliberalism is the ideology of Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, both Clintons, and Biden, to name a few obvious examples.
A study that samples 148 different articles, I'm sure you reviewed a good selection of them before you came to a different conclusion than the study did, right?
It's not like you just named 6 very different politicians and claimed they're all the same because "neoliberal", that would be exactly my point.
Out of probably thousands if not tens of thousands available. Who did the study anyway? CAP?
No, I didn't waste my time studying a study that says neoliberalism is never described. Partially because I myself DID provide a nom-exhaustive but definitely not non-existent description of it earlier in this very thread.
Bernie, The Squad and Katie Porter are also very different. Still all adherents to progressivism
Nope. That's not what mentioning examples of different adherents of the same overall ideology is.
That I'm claiming that all neoliberals are identical? Congratulations on being even more wrong than your original false assumptions 🤦
If checking before you spout something incorrect is "wasting your time", then why should anyone take what you say seriously?
It took me way less long to check than it did to write this comment, who's wasting time here?
There are terrible people everywhere. California and New York have 10s of millions of residents - there are bound to be some that are shitstains. The problem is that money = power and when it's possible for one individual to have too much money, it inevitably means that terrible people will be able to amass this kind of power.
This is why wealth (in)equality is important - it's what determines how much powerful individuals are able to become. If it's too easy for a single person to amass too much power, inevitably, the wrong person will be able to gain it.
Ah ok, I suspected Trump would be one of them but TIL about Reagan.
Trump and Reagan
I think the Ukrainian public decided to throw a curveball that Putin and the KGB could never predict - electing an absolute outsider who the KGB didn’t have time to corrupt
Zelensky's campaign was supported by a Ukrainian oligarch. Not exactly an "absolute outsider". In fact, during the campaign the supporters of Poroshenko (who tend to be more nationalists) used this as ground to accuse him of being associated with Russia (among other things).
What people need to understand about the Ukrainian oligarchs are that they're actually oligarchs. It's not US-style "we should get around to regulating campaign financing some time so that Google doesn't run candidates", it's not Russia-style "Actually you're a minor noble there to exploit your dedicated region for the Tsar, by appointment of the Tsar":
In Ukraine it's "businesspeople with not completely clean records running for office because that's a neat way to get legal immunity and corruption opportunities", aka actual oligarchy, with the fat cats themselves in office. They're absolutely not a unified front, often hate each other's guts both in a business and political sense, and while (at least for the longest time) the Ukrainian people had practically no say in who would run, they could choose which Oligarch they liked best, putting their thumb on the scales.
So why did Kolomoyskyi support Zelensky? There's a very simple explanation: Zelensky ran against Poroshenko, who Kolomoyskyi had quite a fallout over stuff much more important than politics, that being funnelling oil into to Kolomoyskyi's refineries:
Enemy of my enemy and all that.
I can't really tell just how important access to Kolomoyskyi's TV channel was for Zelensky's campaign, the man was a folk hero way before meaning that vanishing on TV might've just boosted his youtube channel in equal amount.
I mean, don't you member doctor house? An actor could earn more than a doctor by pretending to be a doctor. Why can't an actor lead a country better than a politician?
Politicians are actors of politics in a way. Reagan is the oft-cited example of a total himbo politician who acted a cultural identity people associated with.
You know what? I still argues it's a great idea to pay government positions well. Let there be no need for bribes or underhanded deals. You want them to also be able to take care of themselves for the stress and it should be something that people want to achieve because of what a good job it is then prove they are right for it so that there is a pool of smart people willing to do it rather than a job managing HR for Facebook cause it pays better.
But maybe I just like the idea of a country that takes care to make sure they are taking care of people.
In theory the idea is great. Unfortunately in reality people in those positions are fucking greedy and will throw citizens under the bus to get a few extra bucks. In South Africa we see the ruling party ANC politicians who earn decent money but they still can't keep their fucking greasy hands out of the cookie jar. It's pretty fucking disgusting since their is still so much poverty in the country but they will rather steal to enrich themselves.
In the US too, senators get paid ~190k/year and continually throw their constituents under the bus for campaign contributions of just a few hundred to a few thousand dollars from lobbyists
Yeah that's an issue but I think it's also from it being nearly impossible for new people to win against incumbents so we do need to also have a setup where it's possible to run and win without already expecting it.
The system incentivizes it.
Agreed. We should (in the US) pay really high salaries to government officials, especially executive office/legislators/judges. Provide huge benefits like paid education and lifetime medical coverage for children and spouses (even if you retire), and a one time home purchase up to a certain amount in any location on retirement. It's yours and if you sell it, the income is yours too. Pension equivalent to salary, which is raised whenever it's increased for active government officials, and continues for your spouse after you die.
But in return, you and your spouse must fully divest yourself of any investments of any kind. You must sell any properties you own beyond a home in your constituent state. A home in DC will be provided, if applicable. Your spouse also may not have investments or own properties. Your adult children may have investments if they're managed by a blind trust.
After you retire, or "age out" at the current full social security age, or at the end of your assigned term after reaching that age, you may not ever hold another job ever again. You may not receive income in any form other than what is paid to you by the pension fund. You (and your spouse) may not own investments of any kind.
Don't like it? Cool, don't run for office.
lol honestly my middle manager boss makes more than him while he’s running one of the most stressful jobs in the world.
I'd cap every civil servant income to 5 median salaries. If that's too not enough, run your country better.
This is close to reasonable. But the argument politicians shouldn't be paid well is bad. If you can't earn a good income as a politician, then the only people that can be politicians are those that are already wealthy.
A working class person (or background) that can do well as a minister will struggle to put their family in the position of earning a reduced salary compared to a job in the private sector that will pay them more.
A good example of this problem is Rishi Sunak. His wife is a billionaire. He doesn't need a salary and PM. He has extended internal combustion engine sales deadline, supported the war in Gaza as soon as a Gaza permit for BP was announced and spitefully stopped the expansion of high speed rail by selling off the land purchased for it. All these actions are in direct support of BP a company his wife directly benefits from.
It would be much better if our politicians earned their income through their salary. We have a dearth of talent due to low pay and high stress roles, only those that are swindling millions out of it are willing to endure.
Easy. If we find any income other than salary, linked to your decisions or not, that's years or decades of manual labor for you. If your spouse is a millionaire, a business owner or even just a hired worker who doesn't agree to the same level of scrutiny until the end of their lives, no politics for you. Leave politics to saints who serve their people for ideological reasons only. Politics is not supposed to be appealing.
I think the money is not that important at this stage. As an important figure you will get a lot of favours and freebies from people and companies, so you dont pass regulations that would hurt their bottom line. You also have a lot more opportunities later by being spokesperson for other organisations, can write books because everyone knows your name or get hired by a big company, because you already know half the politicians they deal with.
Especially taking in consideration how cheap it all is