Latest post of the previous page:
And what do we have? George Gideon Oliver Osborne with a 2.1 BA degree in Modern History.thundril wrote:This month's Coolest dude in Europe (official) is a mathematician and economist. How often does that happen?
Latest post of the previous page:
And what do we have? George Gideon Oliver Osborne with a 2.1 BA degree in Modern History.thundril wrote:This month's Coolest dude in Europe (official) is a mathematician and economist. How often does that happen?
Hardly a huge leap of faith, nor a conspiracy given how polarised wealth has become. That didnt happen by accident.Nick wrote:Is this because the mainstream media don't publish ridiculous conspiracy theories?Greece - What You Are Not Being Told by the Media
Absolutely right. Budget deficit of 15% pa.According to mainstream media, the current economic crisis in Greece is due to the government spending too much money on its people that it went broke.
Oh perleeease. Banks make money by losing so much that they need to be bailed out? Yeah, that'll work as a great strategy.This claim however, is a lie. It was the banks that wrecked the country so oligarchs and international corporations could benefit.
The man's an idiot.
Was it the lizards again....?anaconda wrote:Hardly a huge leap of faith, nor a conspiracy given how polarised wealth has become. That didnt happen by accident.
I would have hoped my point was obvious: that stupendously vast sums of money can be conjured up in a flash and seemingly eagerly handed out to banks. After all, we can't have banks fail, can we?Nick wrote:The figures for bank bail-outs were vast. What point are you making, Alan, if any?
But they are not "handed out" to the banks, are they? There is all the difference in the world between providing capital and liquidity which has largely been repaid and spending money with no hope of return as has happened in Greece. And looking at that poor beleaguered country, we see what happens when the banking system fails.Alan H wrote:I would have hoped my point was obvious: that stupendously vast sums of money can be conjured up in a flash and seemingly eagerly handed out to banks. After all, we can't have banks fail, can we?Nick wrote:The figures for bank bail-outs were vast. What point are you making, Alan, if any?
But I thought that most of the money Greece requires is to pay of their debts...so the banks want their money back and at the moment are demanding it. Whereas the people of Greece will get a very small proportion of the 'loans'/'bailout'.Nick wrote:But they are not "handed out" to the banks, are they? There is all the difference in the world between providing capital and liquidity which has largely been repaid and spending money with no hope of return as has happened in Greece. And looking at that poor beleaguered country, we see what happens when the banking system fails.Alan H wrote:I would have hoped my point was obvious: that stupendously vast sums of money can be conjured up in a flash and seemingly eagerly handed out to banks. After all, we can't have banks fail, can we?Nick wrote:The figures for bank bail-outs were vast. What point are you making, Alan, if any?
A chance for happiness for Europe’s unhappy family (*)
Posted on April 27, 2012 by yanisvaroufakis
Europe is an unhappy family. And like all unhappy families, its diverse forms of competing miseries, afflicting differently its different members, are the reason it cannot regain its poise. Divorce is looming. Only in Europe’s case, and this is where my analogy with families breaks down, divorce can never be cathartic. It stands no chance of leading us to satisfying new relationships and to a future in which we can find peace, tranquility, and a calm state of mind from which to reassess our failed marriage. No, the disintegration of the Eurozone is bound to lead to a deconstruction of the European Union which will, in turn, spawn a postmodern version of the 1930s. The best we can hope for is that, this time round, the fallout will be more farcical than what ensued back then.
The problem is that Europe is not ready for the equivalent of committing to cohabitation ad infinitum; of living under a Federal structure; of paying for things from a common (federal) purse. And it won’t be until and unless we are ready to envision a common army; an electoral system where Greeks may vote for Germans (and Germans for Portuguese officials) to rule over them; of pictures on our euro notes that are images of really existing monuments (as opposed to fictitious gates and bridges that only serve as a reminder of our incapacity to share symbols). And there’s the rub: For we now know that without such unification Europe will unravel with hideous consequences not only for Europeans but for the global social economy as well. Europe, after all, has managed, twice in the last hundred years, to drag the planet into despicable mires. We surely can do it again!
But if Federation is out, at least for now, and the present confederacy is disintegrating before our stunned eyes, is it time to throw in the towel? Certainly not. Thankfully, there is an alternative path on which we can embark swiftly and which leads to a speedy resolution of Europe’s Crisis. The idea is to reconfigure existing European institutions in a manner that, at once,
(a) imposes no demands on the taxpayers of the surplus countries to finance the debts of the deficit nations,
(b) requires no new Treaties (since Treaty changes will, at best, come far too late in the piece),
(c) resolves the three interconnected, yet distinct, crises that are eating away into Europe’s foundations: our debt crisis, the crisis of substandard investment (especially in the indebted regions that need it the most), and, of course, our banking debacle.
Can these three objectives be achieved simultaneously? I submit that they can. To give you a flavour of how this can be done, let’s push the family metaphor a little further. Suppose that a young couple, with terrible credit-worthiness, is struggling to meet its mortgage repayments, due to high interest rates. Rather than having the rest pitch in, an aunt with good credit ratings could take out a loan (at much lower interest rates) to repay the youngsters’ expensive loan, on an agreement (supervised by the whole family) that the youngsters meet the monthly repayments. To safeguard the nice aunt, in case the young ones cannot meet these repayments, the rest of the family can buy out insurance that will repay the aunt if things go badly wrong. This way the young couple manages to make ends meet without having the rest pay for it. In Europe’s case, the equivalent is for the European Central Bank to issue its own bonds for the purposes of servicing member-state debt on condition that the members redeem these bonds in the fullness of time (but at the low interest rates secured by ‘auntie’, the ECB, on their behalf). Additionally, the current bailout fund (the EFSF), rather than bailing out member-states with the money of the surplus nations’ taxpayers, can simply provide insurance services to the ECB (in the remote case that some members do not redeem its bonds in the distant future).
Notice that such a scheme at once ends the debt crisis and relieves the German taxpayer from having to pay, or guarantee, the Club Med’s debts. And that it does so without any new institutions, without federal moves, without all the commitments that the European family is not ready for. In my Modest Proposal the reader can find two more ideas of how to deal with the other two major crises: investment and banks. But these are details. The gist is that Europe can be saved without cohabitation under some, hastily assembled, oppressive, Federal structure. All it takes is a rational re-assignment of existing institutions. The burning question, however, remains: Are we prepared to accept that neither divorce nor the current confederacy are decent options for our troubled family?
Not the banks, but the IMF, ECB, EFSF, etc. The commercial banks have largely bailed out already, so it is other EU citizens who will eventually pay, which, understandably, they don't want to do.Altfish wrote:But I thought that most of the money Greece requires is to pay of their debts...so the banks want their money back and at the moment are demanding it. Whereas the people of Greece will get a very small proportion of the 'loans'/'bailout'.
Hehheh...not my scene I'm afraidNick wrote:Was it the lizards again....?anaconda wrote:Hardly a huge leap of faith, nor a conspiracy given how polarised wealth has become. That didnt happen by accident.
Really? I'd have thought, as an anaconda, you'd have had some sort of kindred afinity.... OK, so they've got legs, but they are somewhat short.anaconda wrote:Hehheh...not my scene I'm afraidNick wrote:Was it the lizards again....?anaconda wrote:Hardly a huge leap of faith, nor a conspiracy given how polarised wealth has become. That didnt happen by accident.
No, I'm not denying it, but I do not subscribe to your apparent analysis as to why it has occurred. It is not because of some sort of class solidarity, but because of the changing nature of the international economy. Most of the richest in the West are self made, not the product of privilege.Though if by lizards you mean faceless Bilderberg dwelling corporate entities then probably yes. Are you denying that the top wealth owners haven't increased their wealth hugely over the past forty years?
That is actually bollox. The richest pay more in total than ever before. The fact that marginal rates are lower, demonstrates the destructive nature of high taxes. You are completely wrong on this point. Please go and look at the data, starting with UK tax receipts following the reductions in the rates of top rate tax during Thatcher's premiership.Of course not, it's common knowledge, and partly due at least in the UK to a huge drop in overall taxation for those with the most.
Dunno quite what you mean here.... But I do try to unpick woolly rhetoric, if that's what you mean.....You seem to live in a bubble, a version of reality which is Curious......as if nothing ever happens, people's behavior or the behavior of corporate entities unless it's empirically clean and neat for you.
We're back to lizards again.Politics has been the plaything of big business for decades particulaly in the US. Just because it doesn't come with a weekly public briefing doesn't mean it isn't happening. Politics business and media. Comfy bedfellows.
It may surprise you (it certainly surprised me!) but I agree with much of this analysis.thundril wrote:How about THIS
Agreed, pretty much. The threat of a return to protectionism, etc. Not good.A chance for happiness for Europe’s unhappy family (*)
Posted on April 27, 2012 by yanisvaroufakis
Europe is an unhappy family. And like all unhappy families, its diverse forms of competing miseries, afflicting differently its different members, are the reason it cannot regain its poise. Divorce is looming. Only in Europe’s case, and this is where my analogy with families breaks down, divorce can never be cathartic. It stands no chance of leading us to satisfying new relationships and to a future in which we can find peace, tranquility, and a calm state of mind from which to reassess our failed marriage. No, the disintegration of the Eurozone is bound to lead to a deconstruction of the European Union which will, in turn, spawn a postmodern version of the 1930s. The best we can hope for is that, this time round, the fallout will be more farcical than what ensued back then.
Again, I can accept much of this analysis.The problem is that Europe is not ready for the equivalent of committing to cohabitation ad infinitum; of living under a Federal structure; of paying for things from a common (federal) purse. And it won’t be until and unless we are ready to envision a common army; an electoral system where Greeks may vote for Germans (and Germans for Portuguese officials) to rule over them; of pictures on our euro notes that are images of really existing monuments (as opposed to fictitious gates and bridges that only serve as a reminder of our incapacity to share symbols). And there’s the rub: For we now know that without such unification Europe will unravel with hideous consequences not only for Europeans but for the global social economy as well. Europe, after all, has managed, twice in the last hundred years, to drag the planet into despicable mires. We surely can do it again!
Wow! Tell me more!But if Federation is out, at least for now, and the present confederacy is disintegrating before our stunned eyes, is it time to throw in the towel? Certainly not. Thankfully, there is an alternative path on which we can embark swiftly and which leads to a speedy resolution of Europe’s Crisis. The idea is to reconfigure existing European institutions in a manner that, at once,
(a) imposes no demands on the taxpayers of the surplus countries to finance the debts of the deficit nations,
(b) requires no new Treaties (since Treaty changes will, at best, come far too late in the piece),
(c) resolves the three interconnected, yet distinct, crises that are eating away into Europe’s foundations: our debt crisis, the crisis of substandard investment (especially in the indebted regions that need it the most), and, of course, our banking debacle.
I can't wait to hear this!!Can these three objectives be achieved simultaneously? I submit that they can.
I thought you said there was a solution!To give you a flavour of how this can be done, let’s push the family metaphor a little further. Suppose that a young couple, with terrible credit-worthiness, is struggling to meet its mortgage repayments, due to high interest rates. Rather than having the rest pitch in, an aunt with good credit ratings could take out a loan (at much lower interest rates) to repay the youngsters’ expensive loan, on an agreement (supervised by the whole family) that the youngsters meet the monthly repayments. To safeguard the nice aunt, in case the young ones cannot meet these repayments, the rest of the family can buy out insurance that will repay the aunt if things go badly wrong. This way the young couple manages to make ends meet without having the rest pay for it. In Europe’s case, the equivalent is for the European Central Bank to issue its own bonds for the purposes of servicing member-state debt on condition that the members redeem these bonds in the fullness of time (but at the low interest rates secured by ‘auntie’, the ECB, on their behalf). Additionally, the current bailout fund (the EFSF), rather than bailing out member-states with the money of the surplus nations’ taxpayers, can simply provide insurance services to the ECB (in the remote case that some members do not redeem its bonds in the distant future).
What I notice, is that billions are being lent at low or no interest rates. This is effectively crystallising the loss for the German (and other Euro-area) taxpayers, not relieving them of future liabilities.Notice that such a scheme at once ends the debt crisis and relieves the German taxpayer from having to pay, or guarantee, the Club Med’s debts
It does so by picking their pockets without them noticing. Except that they will!And that it does so without any new institutions, without federal moves, without all the commitments that the European family is not ready for.
As the first idea doesn't work, I won't bother with the second or third.In my Modest Proposal the reader can find two more ideas of how to deal with the other two major crises: investment and banks. But these are details.
The relationship has irretrievably broken down, but the feuding couple cannot even afford to go their separate ways. They should not have succumbed to the lust of the European project in the first place. And that applies to the extended family too, who encouraged and participated in the doomed marriage from the very beginning.The gist is that Europe can be saved without cohabitation under some, hastily assembled, oppressive, Federal structure. All it takes is a rational re-assignment of existing institutions. The burning question, however, remains: Are we prepared to accept that neither divorce nor the current confederacy are decent options for our troubled family?
I don't know what you think should happen at this point....? There really is no alternative, given the dire situation Greece is in, made dangerously worse by Syriza, who seem to think that they can make water flow uphill, just by shouting in the streets. The problem is not "money", it is the total failure of the Grand European Project. You can't have monetary union without political union, and no-one favours pan-European political union any more.Dave B wrote:As usual it is money that makes the decisions; people, quality etc. come a poor second.