Seems like IS sop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
Seems like IS sop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So in the past few days I've seen an astonishing number of otherwise non-crazy people advance the bizarre argument that we should excuse Erdogan's shenanigans because he's done so much for the Turkish economy. Of course that's ridiculous but it got me wondering about what kind of impact Erdogan has had on the Turkish economy. Has he worked wonders, as some seem to believe? If not, who/what was responsible for the improvement really? Has he contributed to worsening the economy in less visible ways? Any and all input welcome.
Not only is it a very bizarre logic (the ends justify the means), it isn't even true. Turkish GDP growth growth has not been particularly special under Erdogan's rule. Not terrible, but not great amongst developing nations.
The answer is yes he and his party have done great things to improve the economy. However a lot of it is based on attracting foreign money and that means that the political instability he is causing by his autocratic tendencies does severe damage. If the rule of law is what the ruler decides it is, that gives people pause to think if their investment is safe in Turkey. Once the foreign money dries up the Turkish economy goes over the cliff. By the way half of the malls opened over the last decade are half empty and underperforming. There are serious indications that part of the reason why Davutoğlu had to go was that Davutoğlu had said that the Turkish state couldn't afford the big projects Erdoğan likes so much any longer.
I too am seeing mixed answers. On the one hand, greater fiscal discipline, esp. early on. On the other hand, rampant clientelism, unsustainable projects of dubious value, questionable policy wrt interest rates and a worrying over-reliance on foreign investment and debt (worrying because of the possible impact, on investors' perceptions and behavior, of political instability as well as of shenanigans).
Btw, does the Turkish constitution really explicitly allow or even require the armed forces to intervene eg. when Turkey's secular nature is threatened or in any such situation?
As far as I know yes. You should not forget the present constitution was written by the generals who disposed of the civil government in september 1980. The way I understand it, article 4 of the Constitution, which declares even proposals for changes to the first 3 articles illegal was put there to curtail the powers of civil society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I ask because I keep seeing the claim but I've been unable to find the specific text that grants the armed forces this power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Wikileaks has a huge cache of 300,000 Turkish government emails
About as interesting as when they would have dumped 300,000 random e-mails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
See my edit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The only reference I can find is to an amendment, in 2013, of some article of the legal code (unclear if it's in the constitution) that removed the legal justification used for previous coups.
The new article is supposed to read:
Quote:
“the duty of the Armed Forces is to protect the Turkish homeland against threats and dangers to come from abroad, to ensure the preservation and strengthening of military power in a manner that will provide deterrence, to fulfill the duties abroad with the decision of the Parliament and help maintain international peace”
Okay, Turkish Armed Forces Internal Service Law, Art. 35.
Appearantly up till 2001 the Constitution itself contained stronger wording enabling the armed forces to act, but that was curtailed by charging the Supreme Court with the powers to rule on constitutionality of laws and changes to the Constitution. Article 35 has been around for a lot longer.
It took the Turkish security council 5 hours of talks to declare 3 months of a state of emergency. Which makes me wonder why it took them so long.
Okay folks, will Turkey's agreement with the EU re. refugees hold or will it fall apart due to the demand for visa abolition?
It will fall apart, not sure for which reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/8/14...a-refugees-aid
Can't shake the feeling that this is the beginning of something horrific.
Will nothing stop Gulen's attacks against the Turkish people?
That was the first thing I thought of; but it appears that they are angry with the USA for working with Syrian kurds associated with the PKK in Turkey.
And the standard Sevres Treaty paranoia.
Now the Dutch are Nazi's apparently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39242707
Hazir do you mind if I ask if you have any regrets about getting a home in Turkey now. Things have taken a change much for the worse since you invested there it seems, you have my sympathies :(
Erdogan and his bunch are certainly making themselves a lot of friends at the moment. That will most likely silently backfire at them.
Regrets no, worries yes. After the Gezi protest I put plans to rebuild on ice and limited having political discussions to people I trust. Half of this nation does not support the present regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The hysteria is for internal consumption, but Turks will pay the price in the decline of the middle class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Indeed. Foreign investors usually don't like such hysterics by a government and tourists also don't like being called Nazis. They won't make huge waves about it, they'll simply go somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39416954
The fact of spying is less surprising than the scale.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/18/po...ent/index.html
Since nobody posted this yet. What I find interesting is that Erdogan apparently feels untouchable enough to do something like that in the USA without repercussions.
https://www.facebook.com/amerikanins...8768770105442/
Sorry for facebook, but it's the best quality video of the incident I've seen.
But he is untouchable, that is the whole thing. They need him just enough to let him get away with it.
And now we learned he doesn't like the word arena. Which led to the change of name of a bunch of sport stadiums.