The contagion of austerity
Austerity is the new contagion, spreading across Europe. Today it enveloped Italy, with the government there telling the people to expect "heavy sacrifices".
Italians thought they had escaped the crises elsewhere, but today one of their papers told them "the fairy tale is over". The Italian government is expected to announce 24bn euros (£21bn; $30bn) of spending cuts between now and 2012.
Some of these measures are now familiar. A pay freeze for most public sector workers.Government ministries will have to reduce expenses and ministers' salaries will be cut by 10%. Some higher earners will face higher taxes. Yet again there will be an attempt to squeeze out tax evasion. There may even be trims in the much-treasured health sector.
All of this follows similar hair-shirted moves first by Ireland, but then by Greece, Spain and Portugal.
Spain only got serious after a phone call from President Obama. Public sector wages there are to be cut by 7%. Ministers are taking a 15% pay cut. Pensions will be frozen, with cost of living increases eliminated.
Germany will announce $3.75bn of cuts and there are strong hints that even unemployment benefits will be reduced. France is raising the retirement age and planning to reform its pensions.
All of this cutting, slashing, trimming is aimed at persuading the financial markets that Europe can reduce its debts and so avoid the near-bankruptcy of Greece.
What is being forced on Europe is a cultural revolution. It marks an end to an ever-expanding welfare state that some defined as the European way of life. Few European leaders accept - at least openly - that they were on the wrong track. Some officials, however, are starting to say that such generous benefits are no longer sustainable. The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that people would have to work harder and longer.
But in all the talk of "pain" and "sacrifice" a number of questions arise. Will all these measures be implemented thoroughly? We shall see.
What will all these packages do to growth? Growth is expected to be 0.2% this year and to climb slightly next, but will these cuts reduce demand and so make cutting deficits even harder? There is a risk here.
Will the unions and the public sector workers accept these changes? In the weeks ahead there will be tests on the streets of Lisbon and Madrid.
And will France accept its way of life needs to change? After recent elections there the successful Socialist leader Martine Aubry expressed a yearning for the old social model. "We want," she said, "to be reunited with a society that is caring, fair, and where people can live together".
In the short term Europe is being forced to demonstrate to investors it can manage its deficits. But longer-term it will have to show a political will to increase productivity. That will mean tearing up some of the labour laws that make hiring and firing difficult.
More than any discussion about EU rules and institutional change Europe has to get its economies growing again. That is the real challenge.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~41~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Gavin:
Well, the time of everything being given on a platter has now gone away...And, time to go to austerity measures regarding the money for services that the national government has to provide to the citizens...
(d)
Complain about this comment
If that is what needs to be done, then that is what will be done.
I think it is being overhyped though, the fat will have to be hacked away, but national healthcare and social security are never going away.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
All these austerity programs are but in vain. The governments still haven`t realized that you can only cut so much the way they are doing it right now.
I will take the German austerity package as an example:
They are planning on cutting on social and medical security which will ultimately make the middle class and the poor people even poorer. But where are the taxes for high incomes, revenues, you name it?
We once had a tax up to 55% for high incomes. Now it is 42%.
This effectively overburdens our middle class and widens the gap in income disparity.
Where are the income regulations that prevent low wage labour. Instead, the government even subsidizes this rip-off.
German corporations are making record revenues, yet real wages are stagnating. How can this support a domestic market?
and lastly, where is the cut in government and reduction of bureaucracy which effectively would save billions of euros.
Where are democratic reforms so Germans can actually control their politicians. We don`t even have a say on who exactly is voted into the parliament. This is up to the parties.
Same for the EU. They don`t allow you to really vote for a candidate, but for parties.
And as if this wasn`t enough, instead of taking austerity measures, the commission now demands more money. They don`t even think about more democracy or less bureaucracy as in cutting EU-spendings.
Why is the EU growing so slow?
Because bureaucracy and subsidizing stuff doesn`t create value. It destorts markets and makes it harder and harder for new business enterprises to develop.
Instead, old ones that failed are getting bailed out all the time.
Because a few jobs are depending on it.
This has nothing to do with Keynes anymore.
And I do not think that our money is safe in the hands of those politicians.
Complain about this comment
Benefactor @#2
Don't be so sure of that.
Social Security and National Healthcare are funded by taxation and other government revenue. In the United Kingdom a 1/4 of all government revenue comes from borrowed money. The remaining revenue comes form income and coporate taxtation of which at least 1/4 (probably more) comes from the 'profits' derived by the UK Financial Sector.
As we all now know the so-called 'profitability' of the Banks and other financial institutions have been found out to be house of cards and, as the new regime of closer scrutiny and controls that are introduced in Europe and globally, the 'profitability' of the global financial sector will shrink accordingly.
As the revenues of the UK and other european governments shrink and whilst europe is no longer the economic powerhouse that it once was becomes self-evident so european governments will be forced to reduce their expenditures accordingly. That is the reality that the european governments are having to digest and deal with now.
As nice-to-haves, the national healthcare and social welfare societies we all have enjoyed will become too expensive to maintain and europeans will have to learn to live like the rest of the world where free healthcare is severely restricted to all but the very poorest and social welfare is something that is simply unaffordable and cannot be sustained with the growth of population since the concept was introduced into european societies and since most european economies are no longer manufacturing-led economies but have become consumption-led and debt-sustained economies.
Complain about this comment
"...people would have to work harder and longer"
Why not accept (what we are told would be) a lower standard of living? Why do people believe they have to work more? Surely we are past the point where working more improves standard of living (unless measured purely by what we own) so why bother?
Work as little as possible and consume only what you really need. Find real happiness.
Complain about this comment
'Few European leaders accept - at least openly - that they were on the wrong track'
The leaders of the Tory party from William Hague onwards have all pointed out that we were on the wrong track. Shame the BBC kept quite about this up until now.
Complain about this comment
'That will mean tearing up some of the labour laws that make hiring and firing difficult.'
Of course it will. You couldn't ask some of your colleagues to point the bleeding obvious out as well could you.
Complain about this comment
Like I said, the politicians want you to take your eyes off that pea they have been shuffling under the cups.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a4v9ocm.E3sc&pos=12
Now Germany wants to control the markets since regulation enforcement doesn't work.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ar.2nHw2ggLo&pos=15
The ECB is a joke.
Complain about this comment
'It marks an end to an ever-expanding welfare state that some defined as the European way of life'
Not in the minds of the dim wits that still support New Labour it doesn't.
Complain about this comment
"123. At 2:52pm on 25 May 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
G and O
"MAII - don't you get it? We WANT a low euro. Its everybody else who DOESNT want it."
No it's you who don't get it. If it goes as low as I think it will, you will be dreaming of the days when you were once able to buy something with it. What if it went to zero, would you be happy then? Ask someone from Zimbabwe. I don't think it will go that low though."
MAII - And you have a chrystal ball? Obviously, you don't read financial news, otherwise you'd see that europe's trade balance is pretty much equal (10% of America's) so YOU are in much bigger trouble than we are. Also, your comparison with Zimbabwe is totally irrelevant and just shows your insincere commitment on this blog.
Complain about this comment
Gavin,
pretty good analysis, especially these parts:
"What is being forced on Europe is a cultural revolution. It marks an end to an ever-expanding welfare state that some defined as the European way of life. Few European leaders accept - at least openly - that they were on the wrong track. Some officials, however, are starting to say that such generous benefits are no longer sustainable. The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that people would have to work harder and longer."
& "In the short term Europe is being forced to demonstrate to investors it can manage its deficits. But longer-term it will have to show a political will to increase productivity. That will mean tearing up some of the labour laws that make hiring and firing difficult.
More than any discussion about EU rules and institutional change Europe has to get its economies growing again. That is the real challenge."
Spot on!
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Gavin,
Put simply, Europe has been living like someone on holiday with an un-limited credit card.
Now the holiday is over and the bill has to be paid.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone noted how Duncan Kennedy, the BBC's Italy correspondend, looks a bit like Nigel Farrage?
Complain about this comment
It is unfair that welfare is being cut back rather than targeting the rich first. Cutting welfare will lead to more crime if poorer people become desperate to pay for essentials.
Complain about this comment
Both the Public and the Private sector have borrowed far too much money.
They were fooled into borrowing this on the grounds that it was apparently 'affordable' - it wasn't and now it has to repaid.
This fake liquidity was created by CDOs and other related trade-able financial instruments. The real killer problem is that this excess money went into inflation (mainly property) and not into building productive capacity. So essentially it has evaporated, but because of the nature of the loans being secured this debt will cripple both the lenders and the borrowers.
Austerity is just the beginning - this is 1870 all over again. (The Long Depression - look it up if you don't know to what I am referring.)
To recover then it was necessary to rid the whole financial system of these excess debts and overpriced assets. Unfortunately the Banks are now 'too big to fail' so this process will (and did) take decades. (It took just 25 years in the 1870s.)
Complain about this comment
DurstigerMann,
I generally agree with your analysis but not with your take on taxes.
"We once had a tax up to 55% for high incomes. Now it is 42%."
I do not believe that taxing someone more than HALF of what they earn is fair. Regardless of income level. I believe a fair income tax is between 30% and 40%.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I post again:
You can let individuals fail, companies to, even banks, but not nations.
The current Central Bankers and Politicians seem to have an overwhelming desire to believe the current financial system works.
And the plain truth is, it doesn’t, because if it did, countries wouldn’t need ‘bailing out’.
Up to press the Central Bankers and Politicians are trying to keep a flawed financial system afloat, whilst letting country’s sink.
They need to accept the reality that the financial system is hopelessly flawed, and print a shed load of money to save nations from going bankrupt.
And then if they have any sense, which on balance is unlikely, change the current financial system.
Because the way it’s set up promotes debt slavery, particularly for the young, and if that represents a fair future for young kids I'll plait sawdust.
The young should set out in life on a level playing field, not with a mountain of debt to climb.
Complain about this comment
It is amazing that governments act like a 10% or less reduction in spending is somehow an unmanageable event. Maybe it will bring closer looks as to how they actually spend money as those with cuts will certainly point to others they feel are more deserving of budgetary reductions. If addressing the issue only requires a less than 10% cut, it can hardly be a crisis. Something is going on with the governments and the banks and it certainly is not going to benefit taxpayers. Who knows? one day the truth about all of this may actually be told. This is all starting to look like another banking scam and like the last one facilitated by the governments.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
16. At 7:04pm on 25 May 2010, Tony Evans wrote:
"It is unfair that welfare is being cut back rather than targeting the rich first. Cutting welfare will lead to more crime if poorer people become desperate to pay for essentials."
On one hand I agree, on the other, what does it mean "essentials"?
Let them cut back on the iPod as Xmas present for the 8-years old kid.
Not sure how the Americans will be able to deal with these coming up austerity measures, as shopping is their most important hobby... no, correction... it's there meaning of life...
Complain about this comment
18. At 7:06pm on 25 May 2010, Gheryando wrote:
DurstigerMann,
I generally agree with your analysis but not with your take on taxes.
"We once had a tax up to 55% for high incomes. Now it is 42%."
I do not believe that taxing someone more than HALF of what they earn is fair. Regardless of income level. I believe a fair income tax is between 30% and 40%.
As I said before, it's not really income tax, it's a tax on business when they pay salaries... forget this idea of gross / net income...
And why shouldn't the state tax businesses that pay millions of salaries and bonuses to senior management?
And why shouldn't the state tax football clubs that have apparently enough money to pay £200,000 per week for some guys that kick a ball?
Why not?
The UK is blaming states like Switzerland and Liechtenstein for tax evasion?
Clean up Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man first!!!
And get rid of the loop holes in the tax laws...
Once they make sure that everybody pays the appropriate share then they can start cutting...
Complain about this comment
Why are ordinary folk, the citizens, and the public sector, suffering as a result of the private sector?!
People, particularly those within the private sector, lambaste the public sector for its inefficiencies, yet the current crisis - that has led to huge cuts in public spending - emerged from the complete balls-up within the financial sector - the private/commercial/business sector...
The ordinary folk have had their taxes, present and future, used to bail out the banks; taxes that should have been used to service the needs and interests of local communities...instead, local communities are now facing very real reductions in the quality of local services, the loss of livelihoods etc...the taxpayer bails out the private sector and gets sod all in return. Critically, there is a very real loss in terms of the quality of life...and this so that a very small elite can retain the right to make money out of thin air!
Does this make sense?! Is this acceptable?! NO - it galls in a way that cannot be put into words!
Complain about this comment
Good god, our very lives depend on the whims of a fashion. The pace and scale of this volility demonstrates that there is no wisdom in the "markets". This is herd mentality acting on the smallest sniff of credible information. The most certain thing the market has is the impact of its own action, nothing more. There is no informed decision here, there is no good information. This should stop now. Gen X, Gen Y: you dont have much choice but to get rid of this joke of an economic structure. The "bankers" are gamblers who make tedious bets on their blinkered scope, our masters differ only in the money they can invest on their myopic game. We face this down, or we pretend it works. Either way, it's a hard 30 years, but we can make it work for our children.
Complain about this comment
"Austerity is the new contagion, spreading across Europe.......What is being forced on Europe is a cultural revolution"
Misery loves company! And if the PIGS want to avoid being sent to the butcher now might be the time for them to take up yoga, realign their chakras, and get mind and body healthy again!
Hey Macro: why are all your 'contributions' being referred? LOL. You got a friend out there...somewhere! Can't say I blame them.....
Complain about this comment
"Why are ordinary folk, the citizens, and the public sector, suffering as a result of the private sector?!"
Ms. Miyagi, I'm not sure if you realized, but, WE are the private sector..
Complain about this comment
Wait for the next 1 trillion Euros to be dumped into the economy.
Every "crisis" is an excuse to print money and since the politicians got control of the printing presses, there is no stopping.
"sterilization"? HAHAHA
All that happened is that the debt was put off (out of sight out of mind).
Just give every European a million Euros and start spending.
Complain about this comment
"Hey Macro: why are all your 'contributions' being referred? LOL. You got a friend out there...somewhere! Can't say I blame them....."
Its micro, not macro
Complain about this comment
Sometimes I find it interesting, how BBC tries to affect people's opinion: they way it tries to make Britons dislike Europe, or the way it tries to make people believe that austerity programs are not just fair, but one starts wondering how could we ever live without them. I guess the Big Brother (US) must be pleased with this kind of cooperation.
Anyway, I am sure that these kind of things serve one purpose: multinational corporations (most of all: banks) and their leaders try to get some extra profit. They are not stupid, they are aware that exponencial growth is impossible until the end of time, but the time the system agonyses can be extended, if people work more and more, and get less and less. Has anyone ever thought about how dramatically the efficiency of all kinds of productions increased in the past decades, and yet we need to work about the same amount of time to buy a home (or even more) as our grand parents? I am aware that we have more needs, but if I was totally wrong, then super riches did not exist, who have more money than some less lucky countries. But they not just exist, but are richer and richer evey year, does not matter whether the whole world is suffering from the criseses they caused, or things are more or less fine.
So the money-suckers of the American Empire need more money, which means we need to pay. But we can even consider ourselves lucky, as we do not get attacked so that they can export their democracy (=corruption). The only thing that makes me very sad is that even our own leaders treat us like simple farm animals.
Complain about this comment
If someone is reporting MarcusAureliusII's comments just because of who he is and not for being in breach of the House Rules then they are merely demonstrating their puerile behaviour and they should grow up!
I may dislike or like what MarcusAureliusII contributes to this Blog but he has every right to contribute and someone imposing their own personal opinions by way of censorship of the comments of others is attacking the freedom ALL people to have free speech and demonstrates their own intelligence being akin to that of a nit.
Complain about this comment
@18 Gheryando
"I do not believe that taxing someone more than HALF of what they earn is fair. Regardless of income level. I believe a fair income tax is between 30% and 40%."
I do not agree that it is unfair to tax more wealthy people more and here is why:
There is not only income tax, but also other taxes like VAT, etc.
Probably anybody would understand how VAT will tax less wealthy people a lot more. And this is by far not the only indirect tax on consumption.
So what about income tax?
If you compare an annual gross income of 25.000 EUR with a gross income of 500.000 EUR, do you think that say 30% will have the same effect on the wealth of the respective person?
But as if this wasn`t bad enough, the income tax in Germany peaks at around 63.000 EUR after which it gets lower again (percental).
I am all for fair taxes which don`t need to be too high as well.
But the way it works right now is absolutely overtaxing the majority of German employees, which, in turn, has to be payed by the employer.
That is one of the reasons why real wages are stagnating in Germany and unemployment is soaring.
But I don`t see a cut on the overbloatet apparatus of state and regulations in Germany and Brussels in the near future.
They will rather continue discussion the optimal curvature for bananas.
There really should be a ban for mediocre jurists going into politics. ;(
/rage
Complain about this comment
Oh good grief. It wasn't the welfare state or socialism that caused us to require billions to bail out our banks. It wasn't the welfare state or socialism that led to an economy driven by debt. And it wasn't the will of the people that caused the collapse of the Greek economy.
It was unfettered capitalism coupled with greed.
The UK itself is valued at around 7 trillion. Yet we, the general public, get to pay for the deficit. The top 1% of the population own 21% of the wealth in the UK. £1,400 billion. Maybe they, who have sucked money for so long out of the state, maybe they should consider paying something back.
Complain about this comment
Spain only got serious after a phone call from President Obama.
Who?
Do you mean the President of the United States, the same United States whose debt Outstanding Public Debt (as of 25 May 2010) was: $12,992,864,676,911.00?
The estimated population of the United States is 308,440,287
So the debt resting on each pair of American shoulders is 42,124.41.
The United States National Debt has continued to increase an average of $4.11B each and every day since September 28, 2007.
One of the ways that the overall debts of one nation can be compared to the overall debt of another nation is %’age GDP.
In 2009, US public debt was approximately 90% of GDP. It will quickly approach and surpass 100% of GDP in 2010.
And guess what?
This assumes a productivity growth of 5%, which I think has about as much proabbility as pennies from Heaven.
So why is Obama calling Spain?
What will be forced upon the United States is not just a cultural revolution, not just austerity - but bankruptcy.
It will mark the end of American imperalism.
It will mark the end of the American way of life.
There will be no social programs in the States. It will be every man for himself – a massive Katrina!
Will the American people accept these changes?
Instead of calling Spain, let Obama be the first to prove that he can manage the American debt. Manage the American deficit. Increase American growth to 5%.
In the meantime, I am conmfident that the EU, the Euro and the EDB will do just fine.
Complain about this comment
30. At 9:03pm on 25 May 2010, Gheryando wrote:
"Hey Macro: why are all your 'contributions' being referred? LOL. You got a friend out there...somewhere! Can't say I blame them....."
Its micro, not macro
These are the first austerity measures by the BBC...
They have to cut server space...
And they have to start somewhere....HEHEHEHE
Complain about this comment
32. At 9:18pm on 25 May 2010, Menedemus wrote:
"If someone is reporting MarcusAureliusII's comments just because of who he is and not for being in breach of the House Rules then they are merely demonstrating their puerile behaviour and they should grow up!
I may dislike or like what MarcusAureliusII contributes to this Blog but he has every right to contribute and someone imposing their own personal opinions by way of censorship of the comments of others is attacking the freedom ALL people to have free speech and demonstrates their own intelligence being akin to that of a nit."
It's not me but I find quite funny and irony that as an American he has to learn the hard way what "imposing" means...
He is free but apparently somebody is "more free"
A la Merkel... let's change the House Rules...
Complain about this comment
You’ve got to ask yourself why?
Why are nations supposedly bankrupt?
Well they’ve run up so much debt is the conventional answer.
But why have they run up so much debt?
Answer = Well they’re run by politicians who probably have more interest in their own welfare than that of their country’s.
But here’s the best bit:
They have borrowed money that is yet to be created.
And they owe money that has yet to be created.
All the money that has been loaned isn’t in fact real money that actually existed, it’s just future money. It’s just future promises to pay.
All the sovereign debt in all the world, is just future money.
What politicians are currently doing is promising that the children that are currently growing up, will work their hearts out to somehow satisfy their politicians promises to pay.
None of this money will ever be real, if the future generation tell the current Bankers and Politicians to go whistle Dixie. Which being a father of three, I kind of hope they do.
Oddly enough the current financial crisis can only be resolved by the young, because only they can ultimately settle all the promises to pay incurred by the various Politicians to the ‘Banks’.
If ever there was time for them to say no, this must surely be it.
Because if I was a young man, I know I would.
Complain about this comment
35. At 9:29pm on 25 May 2010, BluesBerry wrote:
"The United States National Debt has continued to increase an average of $4.11B each and every day since September 28, 2007."
$4 Billion per day
Hmmmm, they could at least send $8 B next weekend to Athens...
Complain about this comment
CSI;
"Sometimes I find it interesting, how BBC tries to affect people's opinion: they way it tries to make Britons dislike Europe"
It's making me dislike Britain more and more...especially today...and I didn't much care for it to begin with.
Complain about this comment
I read people decrying cuts in the Public Sector but the problem with the public sector is that it provides services but does not contribute to the wealth or the income of the nation.
I ead people decrying that taxes should be raised on the wealthy but not the poor but taxes are only taken from the businesses in the private sector that generate wealth or income to the nation.
If you work in the Public Sector you simply get paid net wages or salaries a proportion of the gross pay being held back by your employer who then gives that proportion (which you never received) to the Taxman. Your employer also contributes corporate and other taxes to the Taxman - as determined by the tax regime of the nation.
In the public sector, the government give the public sector money from the Taxman and the public sector then pays people to deliver services as employees of the public sector but, in essence, it is the money taken from the private sector as taxes that has been recycled to pay the public sector wages and employ people in the public sector. The fact that the public sector employees pay taxes is laughable as they never receive the tax deducted and, in any case, the taxed income is actually tax revenue raised from the private sector in the first place.
As the private sectors of european economies have grown ever more small over the years as manufacturing has declined in importance and been taxed into oblivion in some cases with many businesses transferring to other global locations where the taxation is more reasonable, so the tax revenue from the wealth creators has decreased with time.
Governemets have for years been borrowing to make up the shortfall in real tax share of GNP. Like addicted credit card holders governemets have now reached a point where they simply cannot borrow any more and will ahve to reduce their reliance on borrowed money and pay for the public sector with the tax revenues of the private sector of their nation.
If europe does not increase the scale and investment its manufacturing and private sectors the plausibility of the private sectors being able to finance the public sectors and their non-productive employees will continue to diminish and the individual wealth and prosperity of the peoples of europe will become but an historic memory.
Complain about this comment
So why is there never any talk of simply doing away with the wasteful, useless "EU"?
Complain about this comment
I want to suggest, yet again, that we should be considering different taxes because the current taxes penalise those who work and those who give others work.
Complain about this comment
23. At 8:04pm on 25 May 2010, oeichler wrote:
" ...
Not sure how the Americans will be able to deal with these coming up austerity measures, as shopping is their most important hobby... no, correction... it's there meaning of life..."
EUpris: If somebody posted a similar comment about black people or Jews, you would know it was wrong. For some strange reason, many Europeans think it is acceptable to make racist comments about Americans.
Re: " ...no, correction... it's there meaning of life..." Try "its their meaning of life" if you want to talk that rubbish.
Complain about this comment
"..Will France accept its way of life needs to change?"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
For so long as there is a conniving Germany and another 25 dumb smuck nations willing to believe in the utter farce that a EUropean Union is not solely designed to maintain France's living standards at cost to every other Nation there will bo no 'change' in France's attitude & conduct.
And frankly, why would France's Citizens change whilst the rest of EUrope post-Maastricht has fallen for the EU con-trick year-on-year!?
'France change'!
HoHoHoHohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohohooooooooooooooooooooo!
Complain about this comment
While I agree that the welfare state needs to be severely cut, its not the worst culprit in government spending in Europe. Large bureaucratizes exist today only to employ people with right connections. It's like the fall of Roman Empire, the Roman empire's army had more officers than soldiers at the end, because the army's main function was to employ a section of the population, not to defend the empire. Three example from my country Sweden.
1. Our diplomatic corp exist mainly as retirement posts of failed or semi-senile politicians for a sizable part of our budget.
2. Health-care regions, this regional division devour a big part of the health-care budget, but really doesn't contribute anything.
3. Immigration bureaucracy - employ a huge number of people that really doesn't do anything except letting in many people that we previous would call barbarians but in these political correct era would call "cultural enrichment".
Whats is needed in Europe is a selective austerity,
1. stop of emigration.
2. eliminating whole departments/bureaucracies on all levels, from local to EU.
3. streamlining the rest on an rational basis.
But as many citizen in Europe, I don't trust our politicians to make good decisions. They are a incompetent, corrupt and weak bunch of people.
Complain about this comment
@ 44
American isn't a race, its a nationality, a nationality associated with a certain culture, ideals, history, level of obesity etc.
Those things are fine to make fun of.
Complain about this comment
43. At 10:43pm on 25 May 2010, EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
I want to suggest, yet again, that we should be considering different taxes because the current taxes penalise those who work and those who give others work.
Absolutely, let's tax the ones that do not work...
Complain about this comment
#4 Durstigermann
Many citizens of Europe and the UK have much more to worry about than you.
Germany has proved time and time again that it tries to do its best for its citizens-- in both good and bad times.
Others do not have that Luxury !
Complain about this comment
47. At 11:25pm on 25 May 2010, Benefactor wrote:
@ 44
American isn't a race, its a nationality, a nationality associated with a certain culture, ideals, history, level of obesity etc.
Those things are fine to make fun of
I don't agree... it's not funny... it's sad...
And I was only talking about shopping, EUprisoner, not even about tightening THEIR belts...
Complain about this comment
#42 EUpris
Are you offering to be cut ?
Complain about this comment
The first thing to do to get rid of a welfare state is to start privitizing those things that ought to be in private hands because that's how they are best run. British Telecom would still be tin cans and strings were it not privitized. There's a certain media company that is much too fat and could use some competition to become leanen and provide better service at lower cost. Guess who that would be.
Complain about this comment
#44 EUpris
You just proved you never listen to American radio !
Complain about this comment
#45 CbW
You have a choice, the UK con-trick on its citizens or the EU´s.
Which is better ?
(Try not to let nationalism influence your illogical decision )
Complain about this comment
#52 MarcusAurellius
At least most of the European bridges will not collapse on their homeless.
Complain about this comment
"32. At 9:18pm on 25 May 2010, Menedemus wrote:
If someone is reporting MarcusAureliusII's comments just because of who he is and not for being in breach of the House Rules then they are merely demonstrating their puerile behaviour and they should grow up!
I may dislike or like what MarcusAureliusII contributes to this Blog but he has every right to contribute and someone imposing their own personal opinions by way of censorship of the comments of others is attacking the freedom ALL people to have free speech and demonstrates their own intelligence being akin to that of a nit."
I agree. At the same time, if it was referral-worthy, then it is what it is. If it wasn't any referral would be deemed insignificant.
Complain about this comment
"So what about income tax?
If you compare an annual gross income of 25.000 EUR with a gross income of 500.000 EUR, do you think that say 30% will have the same effect on the wealth of the respective person?
But as if this wasn`t bad enough, the income tax in Germany peaks at around 63.000 EUR after which it gets lower again (percental)."
What do you mean by "same effect"? Obviously, the disposable income of the richer person is higher. That doesn't mean that they don't pay the same VAT. Obviously, the difference is only in that the poorer person has less disposable income after purchasing necessities. However, that is life. A richer person who earns 500,000 vs someone who earns 25,000 OBVIOUSLY will have more disposable income. This is due to the free market and capitalism. The market REWARDS. If there was no incentive for people to earn higher salary for above-average performance, then there would be no progress. You are advocating just that it seems.
Complain about this comment
52. At 00:19am on 26 May 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"The first thing to do to get rid of a welfare state is to start privitizing those things that ought to be in private hands because that's how they are best run..."
As the governments are only puppets of "Big Business" anyway, maybe we should just privatise them and UK citizens become shareholders of HMG...
Complain about this comment
"As the governments are only puppets of "Big Business" anyway, maybe we should just privatise them and UK citizens become shareholders of HMG..."
I'm not sure whether your sarcastic or not but just immagine a hostile takeover bid by Arabia Ltd of Jerusalem Corp...
Complain about this comment
noisy little acorn;
"#52 MarcusAurellius
At least most of the European bridges will not collapse on their homeless."
Then how do they get rid of them? At least we have a solution to the problem, albeit an expensive one.
Complain about this comment
pls ignore my spelling mistakes. Its late.
Complain about this comment
G and O;
This time my postings being "referred to the moderator" were not the result of a complaint by anyone else posting here. They were referred because they were embarrassing to someone at BBC. If I say who it was or how, this will be referred too. I made the same comment on the BBC Editor's blog and complained about it. That was also instantly referred to the moderators. Reminds me of the Profumo affair and scandal. The problem with covering up something embarrassing is that when people find out that something is being covered up but don't know what it is, they usually imagine far worse than the truth. Unless the moderators allow my comments to be published, you'll just have to keep guessing...if this posting isn't also censored by them too.
Complain about this comment
oi oi oi;
I really wish you Europeans were more skilled at connecting the dots. Must I spell it out for you? I was referring to one entitity in particular; M-I-C...K-E-Y.....K-G-B-B-C :-)
Complain about this comment
"No country can permanently live beyond its means, just like a private household [cannot]"
"One of our problems is, however, that comments are offered to us every day from people who want to appear intelligent and surpass each other in pessimism. This is what I call the intellectual brilliance of pessimism." [This is for you, Marcus...]
This, and much else from Barroso in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. He even pointed out that had Merkel acted faster on the Greek debt problem, it would have been cheaper politically.
Complain about this comment
We haven't seen hide nor hare of WA lately. I figure she's probably off down in South Ossetia or Abkhazia bringing gift packages to the occupying Russian troops and attending the May wine and dance festival. Georgia is reputed to make some very good wines.
Complain about this comment
MA, WA is scared to death right exactly now, dashing around. Alternatively packing things for dacha or thinking how to sell an apartment in one day . Or may be live in the street is better come to think of it. :o)
I turned earth and sky upside down, to find where operate the dog, check him tests and all before that, spoke to cardiologists, all set, found how to go to Moscow AFTER that (company reunion this weekend in Moscow, folks fly from heaps of countries in, 15 yrs after. hotels booked, boat trips booked etc.) found who will live with the dog and walk him for 2 days I am away. packed. washed my ears. Sold Rembrandt away. Well put for commission, for copecks, but they won't return him back. To be able to have money for dog and for trip. (btw Rembrandt proved to be St. Jerome) oh God. THEN I come home tonight and dear mum says oh you know a bad thing happened. I opened windows in kitchen and in all rooms (.... !!!!!) haven't paid attention, sat in my room, heard some fight sounds. A pigeon, a dove flew into the room, dog was getting at him, there was a chase, finally I caught the dove into a towel and kicked him out) (9th floor) (not very usual flight height for doves)
feathers on the floor in my room.
MA this is end of planning. I don't know if you know the sign. Better that you don't now. Looked for counter measures on internet - ah.
Except for advice to ease the effects probably by "spending the night at freinds or acquainatnce - not at home"
Cancelled trip to Moscow.
Thought what O what on earth I'll tell the vet clinic where cardiologist all is set (I even spent there a night 2 days before terrorising the cardiologist through to the morn (was last visitor and no patients walked during the night)
We'll be shown the door in future in that clinic.
Was packing to dacha the whole night. On the bag No 20 got exhausted.
May be it's better to go drown at once.
Complain about this comment
sm********t;
Whether the expectation of the collapse of the Euro and the EU is an indication of pessimism or optomism depends entirely on your point of view. Now take Europris for example. I think if it happened he'd celebrate. However, the issue is not so much how you feel about it but where the truth lies. Is the Euro in trouble? Is the whole EU project on the verge of collapse? Is austerity contagious? Maybe that's at the root of the problem, it isn't contagious enough. Not enough countries or cultures in Europe caught it in time.
Complain about this comment
WA, before you drown yourself in the River Neva, I thought you might enjoy this. It's the latest understanding by an American military historian whos an expert on Soviet battles about the battle of Stalingrad, the greatest battle ever fought (even greater than Nevsky's battle on the ice on Lake Chud) and quite different from prior understandings. It's been showing lately on PBS. This is after the historian had access to previously secret Soviet records after the USSR ended. He says he revised what was going to be a 400 page book into three 900 page volumes. It is much more complex than previously believed and puts the lie to Stalin as a military genius he's been portrayed as luring the Nazis into the city. After you see it, let me know what you think.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/episodes/deadliest-battle-watch-the-full-episode/666/
BTW, when my aunt was in her 90s, she had a squirrel come into her apartment through a window air conditioner. She needed help getting it out.
Good luck with the cardiologist.
Complain about this comment
MA you mean you wouldn't operate tomorrow either.
if at all.
on the link glad to read of any thing now. no, never heard of any cunning planning on our side, just, how to say, what to do. Hitler wanted Volga route down to Caspian oil ask him why. wanted for fuel fr tanks or whatever. anyway what is Russia taken without Volga taken.
We, naturally, opposed to the idea of Volga taken, so the clash was kind of sooner or later in those centre quarters unavoidable.
I don't remember much except Stalin shifted commanders at one point I think. And that it was long. All autumn. Several months. And surely that chap is right . not city only, city, ha, all armies were spread out at thousand kilomtres, a wide central fighting place just for shortage.
Stalingrad simply suffered because of the name. Hitler wanted it as a fancy token in a row, name decoration, Stalin, for the similar reasons, objected to losing a city named after him. Brand name thing.
In Russian idea of the history Kursk and Stalingrad battles are ab of equal importance for us.
In Stalingrad civillians suffered awful, that's why it stands out here.
One day carpet bombing - 43 thousand city dwellers dead on the spot. Plus uncounted wounded. Also Stalingrad is known here for Paulus capture.
They began exporting civillians when it became clear that the place of meet-up is likely to end up the very city. I think 180 thousands got out. Some 50 or something thousand joined as volunteers as front-line came to them without asking.
Anyway when it ended and people began returning back to the city and city council did the dwellers count, first thing.
The records are awful. It goes like - that city region - 15. That city region - say 40. That city region - whole 7! lived through to the end of the Stalingrad battle. One total disaster because even in Leningrad survived nearly one half. Well, one half of what it was before evacuation and before the city began shrinking by all ways - run outs, evacuation formal, going as soldiers to the front.
In Stalingrad - nothing of the kind. 15, 40 and 7 is not impressive left-over of dwellers.
Complain about this comment
When Gavin and others talk about people WORKING LONGER, I think it refers to the age at which an employee can retire. Greece has been allowing some to retire in their 50s of age, particularly govt. employees.
One way of bringing expenditures by govt closer to taxation receipts is to modify the formula for pensions so that the pension previously paid at age 55 is now available at age 61; the pension previously at 56 is postponed to age 62; the pension at age 57 is pushed back to age 63, and so on.
A stickier wicket is cutting pensions of those already retired. Seems unfair to promise someone a lifetime income of $X per month, and after a few years reduce it to 80% of X. It seems fairer to change retirement age for those still working, perhaps grading the postponement for those within 5 years of the prior retirement age. Arguably more tolerable is to remove cost of living increases for retirees.
The problem -- too high benefits for govt. retirees -- is not limited to the PIIGS; same problem afflicts California as an individual state, and the USA as a whole. Politicians promise unrealistic payouts, and often postpone considering solutions a/c pain will result. Old people in their 70s may live better than their children in 40s and grandchildren in 20s, even when both the children and grandchildren have full time jobs. People of good will could work this out; but politicians are in charge. Sad!
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
#70
"The problem -- too high benefits for govt. retirees -- is not limited to the PIIGS; same problem afflicts California as an individual state, and the USA as a whole."
Except that in the USA you have a lot of bankers who, with the help of politicians, have made a lot of money lately with 'sophisticated' financial instruments which blew up the economy, and triggered bank bail-outs paid by the taxpayers. I don't see why government retirees should be singled out for a cut: re-regulating the banking sector, and imposing transaction taxes on them (just a small sales tax will do) seems to be much more equitable for present and future generations. After all, bank regulation is what happened after the crash of 1929. "People of good will could work this out", indeed.
Complain about this comment
"The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that people would have to work harder and longer"
Did he say why people would have to do that or is that a thought for another day?
Complain about this comment
@ 57 Gheryando
"The market REWARDS. If there was no incentive for people to earn higher salary for above-average performance, then there would be no progress. You are advocating just that it seems."
Sure sure sure. The market rewards and er, God punishes? Or what?
I had to give up well paid work to look after my mother (83) and I'm part time now earning £130 week (and I'm taxed), but no debts because I'm wise with money.
When you fall through the net, the descent is long, the landing devastating, and the hatred for capitalist hard-nuts just grows and grows.
"Cuts are going to be very painful!" Squeal govt ministers who have inherited enormous family wealth, they haven't a clue and don't give a tinker's cuss that life is already desperate for hundreds of thousands. But when does the patience of the poor break? The wealthy will have to hide away in their gated communities soon.
I'm the sort of ex-affluent person who has seen and is living the future lying in wait, and I'm so looking forward to sharing hard times with many more genteel people.
Complain about this comment
"M-I-C...K-E-Y.....K-G-B-B-C :-)"
hahahaha
Complain about this comment
"What will all these packages do to growth? Growth is expected to be 0.2% this year and to climb slightly next, but will these cuts reduce demand and so make cutting deficits even harder? There is a risk here."
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Such is the nature of a fascist state ruled by owners for the enrichment of owners. And such is the fate of the communist state, also.
Just so folks can understand clearly what Hewitt has said here, contemplate the likely outcomes of a slump in growth. If governments cut spending and raise taxes, what may happen? Demand may drop, business owners may flee to better prospects elsewhere (south east asia is doing nicely) and thus profits and tax revenues may plummet.
And then what?
Well, if tax revenues plummet due to a further slump (the great fear behind the "stimulus" spending), then the government will need to either borrow more to cover the shortfall, or spend even less.
Then what? Well, if governments borrow after a further slump and with falling tax revenues under higher taxation..... they must borrow at a greater cost. So their option will be to cut spending further.
Then what? Well, go back to the start of the reasoning, and keep going in the dreaded downward spiral of economic death.
And somewhere on that spiral, folks are going to panic and start printing money like madmen. And then what?
Well, the bond market collapses as folks realize their currency earning from government gilts are losing value every day. So then the government (hi Greece!) CANNOT borrow. And defaults.
Total. Economic. Collapse.
Sure, that is a risk. A big risk.
But guess what? WE HAVE NO CHOICE!! We have absolutely no choice whatsoever. Europe has borrowed and spent on government managed projects until there is no longer any choice about what happens next.
Look now at Eastern Europe. That is western Europe in the future, for precisely the same reasons. Eastern Europe was run by ex-communist party members who plundered the liberty and happiness of the taxpayer's unborn children by borrowing vast sums of money in their name (for it will be they who work as slaves to pay the debt interest, not the party members). these party folks were welcomed into the EU with broad smiles and open arms. The west could not wait to lend them money, and laughed as they plundered it for themselves. Nevermind, thought the party members and bankers in the west, we are making our commission and these people will need to borrow even more to actually build their economy. When they get around to that nice idea. After they stop enriching themselves with bogus projects and shady deals.
But that time never came. The market got in first. The market saw the debt, saw the productivity, saw the orchestrated corruption called EU "democracy" in eastern Europe, and the market said "YOU FAIL. We're getting out."
And so the death spiral happened to the east, just as it must now happen to the west of Europe.
The lesson nobody will learn is that the state cannot run the economy upon behalf of the elite, or the state will become the mechanism by which the elite rob the poor of everything, and thus send the whole place into poverty and absolute misery for the majority whilst the nobility live the lives of kings.
Europe did not learn this lesson in the dark ages, it did not learn this lesson in the twentieth century.
Surely, at some point in time, Europe must learn to make "citizen" the highest rank in society, and to curb the power of elite representation through the institution of democracy. But probably not for another few hundred years.
Complain about this comment
QOT
I thought we had established the parameters: From extensive reading of You & Your contributions I have nothing worthwhile or even approaching a credible perspective.
You and Your opinion are fully entitled to be on here.
Just as it is my right to ignore You & Your opinion. End of.
Complain about this comment
MAII
Re #62 & referral to the Mods.
Yes, I can understand Your suspicions & frustrations.
2 days ago on a previous topic on the BBC UK Political Editorial blog I had a Comment refused publication.
It was almost entirely about the unfairness & injustice (as I've mentioned on here) of a UK/EUropean system allowing criminally negligent, greed-driven Senior Bankers & Investment Managers to walk off scot-free after wrecking the World's Economy whilst ordinary Joe & Jane are Imprisoned for relatively minor financial misconduct.
Why did that get censored?
In the same comment I used 'rape' for what was happening to Tax-Payer's resources, plus, the temerity to use the word "..integrity.." about a certain BBC Journalist in querying why he never examined the 'Austerity' measures 'Big-Government/Big-Business' were forcing on ordinary Citizens!?
Complain about this comment
You know what, don't break the rules and your posts won't be censored.
But even bearing that in mind, Free Speech doesn't apply to the Internet, at least not in the traditional sense. All websites are owned and run by someone and that someone can remove anything they don't like.
You can't put billboards on my lawn complaining about Britain and the EU, and you can't put comments on here complaining about the BBC or its staff.
Tough!
Complain about this comment
We have repeatedly mentioned that the EU represents unfortunately the interests of top private bankers and investors, thus the democratic deficit, thus the "incomprehensible policies" etc. etc. But we have to be more exact than that. Who are these top bankers and investors? Europeans? Or Americans? Afterall the EEC was a also an American initiative. What is going on inside the EU interested always directly US. No, I am not going to say that bad US spoils things inside naif EU, nothing like. Rather simply, it is the same bankoinvestor family of Europeans who divested all money from European countries to invest in US in the late 19th century (promoting WWI & WWII in Europe while making trillions from US...) who are mingling and playing with EEC/EU. Not a conspiracy. A reality. Schuman-et-al were their representatives, scratch a bit the surface, it is not hard to find details on that.
We should not complain. We should know better. Under the Treaty of Rome (1957 if I remember well), the EEC was founded as a pure financial union of interests of countries. I.e. nothing particular to benefit the people but the investors who could jump easily from country to country without having to deal too much with each country's divergent policies. From a financial union it went on to become something complex as more and more countries were enterring - with first radically different country being funnily litle Greece! whose entry EEC leaders justified as based on "politico-historico-psychological-not-financial" grounds or simple "No Europe without Greece"... these people are really cool! Actually Greece's officia lacceptance in 1978 (and on all terms in 1981) marked the beginning of the European effort to rise on the political map also. But due to its bankofinancial base, there was a huge problem: the EEC structure was incompatible and never really became compatible to make an EU any effective policy maker. All what EU could do is to complicate things. Some countries, obviously the northern ones, saw it as a deeper integration for more profit, i.e. by keeping the south as consumers, giving them money only to consume or make dubious projects (i.e. again consume the northern supplies, services etc.) without aiming at some point it was aimed to make it a political also. One cannot but fail to see that most ressources are coming from other continents from the south (unless anyone thinks that they come from the Nort Pole or via the hyper-siberian railways, so the south should be the focal point of traderoutes (as it had always been till late middle ages), but not only this does not happen but there is a clear strategy to actually avoid that happening. None you of you might have though of it that way but it is actually like using the south as a kind of buffer zone to protect the industrial and financial sectors of the northern countries. to give an example: take a map and you will see that ANY ship passing from the Suez should unload in South Italy and Greece and from there one move the goods via railways (or pipelines for oil/gas etc.) to central Europe in 1 day... NOT spending 1 week more to make the round of Europe and reach Rotterdam or Hamburg which should only deal with the Atlantic commerce. Now go tell that to the Germans the and Dutch and they will pipeline you in the gas pipeline back to Siberia, hehe!!! Yet, this policy is short-sighted. EU created a common financial space yet it strives to concentrate the action into 2-3 regions and then these 2-3 regions supporting all the rest who are implicitly kept away from real projects than can change the map, then at the end even refusing to understand why-o-why it does not work.
Well... no wonder it won't work.
Complain about this comment
78. At 09:28am on 26 May 2010, Benefactor wrote:
" ...d you can't put comments on here complaining about the BBC or its staff. ..."
EUpris: If you consider it to be justified then you can, to some extent.
Re:
" ... You can't put billboards on my lawn complaining about Britain and the EU,..."
I accept that but the BBC is not like your lawn. The BBC is not owned by the people who run it.
Complain about this comment
Benefactor
Re #78
"..Tough!"
Let us just consider that 'tough' for a moment.
Each BBC Editor on these Blogs clearly writes in their Personal Introduction that this Blog is the place where, "..you and I can talk..".
So, according to You, we can 'talk' as it were, but we cannot say anything critical, question the BBC Editor?
I certainly respect the idea of no banners etc., but when You are on that front lawn of Your's and You fall into conversation with a neighbour or someone passing is it Your belief You are entitled to say anything from Your 'lawn', but the neighbour/passer-by must always be mindful not to say anything disagreeable as You stand on Your 'lawn'?
Complain about this comment
72. At 06:52am on 26 May 2010, ChrisArta wrote:
"The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that people would have to work harder and longer"
EUpris: Is that so that we can pay for totally useless people like him and his useless parasite-infested "EU"-regime and its megalomaniac fantasies?
Complain about this comment
It is a bit late to do anything about it now but I am struck by the fact that in common with other EU countries, the UK has a different form of taxation to fund social benefits in the form of National Insurance Contributions. Had this income been ring fenced from day one and invested as you would require a private pension or insurance fund to do, this would have provided some protection. If NI Contributions are simply thrown into the common pot, they are going to end up being used for defense spending, infrastructure - in fact all sorts of things for which it was never intended. The irony that if a newspaper proprietor misuses pension contributions, he ends up belly up in the Atlantic but if a Chancellor does it, it is economic prudence should not be lost on us.
Be that as it may, what we now have is a 'sins of the children' situation. The elderly and most vulnerable in society having been assured that their future was secure because they had paid insurance all their lives, now find this at risk because of the free spending carelessness of a younger generation. How can this be fair?
Governments have been living beyond their means for generations. Thousands of jobs have been created in the public sector to do things that do not need to be done, run quangos which do not need to exist and implement unnecessary and even downright bad regulation. This is where the axe should fall and not on the necks of those who were led to believe that they were doing the right thing.
Complain about this comment
So let me get this straight: the PRIVATE financial sector causes a global crisis, the PRIVATE sector and the oh-so-sacred markets get us into the deepest recession since the 1930s... and somehow this is all the state's fault and we must accept a cut in welfare and public services?
No, no, no. This is the markets' fault. This is the private sector's fault. Let the banks and corporations bear the pain, not innocent working people. Raise taxes on corporate profits and make them pay.
For that matter, we should be nationalizing the worst offenders instead of giving them bailouts.
Complain about this comment
And, by the way, I have never referred anyone in may life and I am not about to start now but if anyone wants to restart the campaign for reactive moderation of the kind Radio4 blogs allow, count me in.
Complain about this comment
72. At 06:52am on 26 May 2010, ChrisArta wrote:
"The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that people would have to work harder and longer"
EUpris: So how are arrogant "EU"-loving politicians going to achieve tyhat?
Are they going to tell even more lies?
Are they going to throw even more money down the drain?
Are they going to make even more promises of referendums which we then don't get?
Or will the give us the referendums but when we vote NO make trivial changes to their treaties and then claim they are different treaties altogether, treaties which do not require a referendum? Maybe they will be printed on different coloured paper.
Complain about this comment
72. At 06:52am on 26 May 2010, ChrisArta wrote:
"The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that people would have to work harder and longer"
EUpris: Has he made any mention of cuts to the "EU" budget? Why does everybody else have to take the pain but not employees of the "EU"? At least as far as I am aware. Did I miss it?
Complain about this comment
65. At 02:06am on 26 May 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"We haven't seen hide nor hare of WA lately. ..."
EUpris: When you and she disappear simultaneously, I sometimes think that you got married in Vegas and are now screaming at each other in a cheap hotel in Niagara Falls.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I meant Viagara Falls.
Complain about this comment
51. At 00:12am on 26 May 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"#42 EUpris
Are you offering to be cut ?"
EUpris: No! I have aright to exist. The "EU" doesn't. I do something useful. The "EU" doesn't.
Complain about this comment
EuroSider wrote:
"Gavin,
Put simply, Europe has been living like someone on holiday with an un-limited credit card.
Now the holiday is over and the bill has to be paid."
No, that is totally wrong. The analogy, with respect, stinks.
The correct analogy is as follows: You share a very large house with your ten brothers and sisters. In your parents will, the house was left in trust for all of you to share, as long as you should live.
Now then the eldest and biggest of your brothers (the military class of nobility) started sleeping with the ugliest of your sisters (the political class), and despite the rules against such perversion the trustee (the judiciary) ignored it. Over time, the incest became a kind of marriage, and one day a strange letter came at the letter box.
Your half witted red haired step brother (the corporate media) opens the strange letter and discovers that the incestuous couple have used their power of appointment under the trust to mortgage the property that all then of the siblings formally owned outright. Instead of paying only land taxes and bills, the ten of you must now find the money to repay a massive, massive mortgage debt that is well beyond your capacity to repay. But worse still, there are only eight of you left, because the incestuous couple have gone to live in Brussels, and they have banked the money they embezzled from the trust in some shady part of the Caribbean.
You go to the trustee for advice, and find that he is fast asleep. When he wakes, you discover that he is habitually drunken, and has signed over all powers of trust administration to the incestuous couple. In short, the legal view is that he would be liable, but he is the son of the judge who would hear the case, so you have no practical option but to somehow pay the debt on the new loan, which was made behind your back on your own property.
In the end, you can't afford such a big house and you must take in renters, and sell off the garden block. You must drain the pool, as you can;t afford to run it, and all eight of you are eventually forced to live in a basement apartment of two rooms. The flatulence of your red haired half brother drives you to wicked thoughts, and at times you curse the fact that your parents sired your siblings.
That is the analogy I prefer, as the character have more depth and the fact of the trust property, the beneficiaries, the pitiful stench and half witted commentary, the judicial negligence and culpability, and the scandalous unjust enrichment, are set out more clearly.
Complain about this comment
Benefactor wrote:
"You can't put billboards on my lawn complaining about Britain and the EU, and you can't put comments on here complaining about the BBC or its staff.
Tough!"
Quite, but he can go to speakers corner and say his piece without you claiming to own everything.
Do you even own a lawn?
Is this bad analogy day, or what?
Complain about this comment
Partially I am agreeing with what "democracythreat" wrote above... This can be seen already in Romania - "the red bourgeoisie" behaved exactly in the manner that "democracythreat" described and the situation of this country evolved accordingly - Total Economic Collapse. But this is not the End...
People in Romania are mumbling about "Why should WE pay the bill of robbery and theft, why should WE be sacrificed by the complicity of the Civilized World with this oligarchic and primitive regime?" Some others, more radical, are talking openly about a "New Revolution" (not a cultural one) and are speaking about "confiscating the wealth of the rich"!! This is happening not because of Romanians being misinformed or uneducated but is happening because the austerity measures to be adopted are striking the pensions with 15% cuts - from 117 Euro average - and public sector's salaries with 25% cuts - from less than 300 Euro average, a real death penalty for most... In Europe. Eastern Europe, but still Europe.
So, if someone thinks that the things will stop after adopting "some measures" is just kidding oneself. As long as the banks, financial corporations and establishment's clients will act as Casinos urging people and governments TO PLAY this situation will go on and on and the gamblers will loose and "THE HOUSE" will cash in. And somewhere on this road what the demonstrators in Athens cried in the past weeks and what is to be shouted on the streets in Romania will be heard in Paris, Barcelona, Rome and London - Stop the Robbery!
Complain about this comment
DemocThreat
Re #91
Love it!
Well the analogy... Not the stench!
Complain about this comment
EUPris
No, You didn't miss it: They just didn't publish it & for once the blabbermouth buffoon Barroso was prevailed upon to keep his avaricious tongue out of the way!
You are going to love this (NOT):
At the recent meeting attended by Hague, Osborne etc. in Brussels the EU Budget was discussed & it was agreed that contributions to it by each Member Nation will not be reduced by even 0.001% for the forthcoming 2 years.
So, there You have it: Despite all 27 nations on the cusp of substantial Public Spending cutbacks the largesse & gravy-train of Brussels continues unabated!
Go on, LOL, go on, I double-dare You!
Complain about this comment
#91 - democracythreat
Priceless! Bravo'
Complain about this comment
@ 81
He can say whatever he wants till he is on my property (well, unless he's disturbing the peace or being threatening. The Internet and Real life don't make for perfect analogies,) then he better do what I say.
Complain about this comment
Now, based on what I said in mes.79 the above, could anyone have any hope of seeing anything different? Well in theory yes. In the past too, history has examples where certain elite circles of interest had created political structures which were later "highjacked" by other circles of interest representing the popular parts of society.
So ok highjack the EU to transform it. But why? Simply cos there is nothing else to do. We are no in the 19th century, not in the 1930s, not in the 1960s. Today there are huge blocks like China, India & Brazil and others in the making. And most of these countries are not any more "stupid natives", they are really oriented into global development, each its own way.
It suffices to see some statistics:
1) China 1300 millions
2) India 1100 millions (and wait to see the results of the census!)
3) US 310 millins
4) Indonesia 250 millions
5) Brazil 200 millions
6) Pakistan 170 millions
7) Bagladesh 150 millions
8) Nigeria 150 millions
9) Russia 140 millins
10) Japan US with 310 millions
Now how many countries of the good old 1st world you see in there? 2. US as 3rd and Japan as 10. How many of east Asia? 5 and there are more following closely the first 10 making the 60% of the world living in East Asia what is hardly the 20% of the earth's landmass. So where is Europe? Germany 16th country then France 21? Nothing spectacular.
Picture is worse when we view the landmasses (and ressources contained inside).
1) Russia (unquestioned champion with more than double of Canada!!!)
2) Canada
3) China
4) USA
5) Brazil
6) Australia
7) India
8) Argentina
9) Kazakhstan
10) Soudan
First country in Europe is Danmark in 13 position (if including semi-independent, almost uninhabited Greenland!)... and from there one France at no41!!!
Now if we take into account the military capacity then things change.
1) USA
2) Russia (in nuclear quantity it is first, in missile technology it is first, it lacks in overall systems & intelligence and of course global reach - however in a total war played on missiles, it could be counted as 1st)
3) France (nuclear force with global reach)
4) Britain (same as 3, same nuclear, more global reach, a bit less military production)
5) China (close to 3 and 4 in nuclear but less global reach)
6) India (nuclear power, huge force)
7) Pakistan (nuclear power, huge force but very troubled)
8) Israel (on the basis of its nucldear as well as overall effectiveness)
9) Brazil (on the basis of its size)
10) Some place Japan, others Germany, Italy and so on
With Europeans Russia, France and Britain there is absolutely no question where all the world's firepower is concentrated, yet the strategic alliance of Europe to US, anyway most powerful army in the world, means that it is US the unquestionable leader for the past 60 years, for the time being and for some time in future. EU countries are faring very well in this sector considering their sizes and populations.
Now let us see the PIB?
1) US
2) Japan
3) China
4) Germany
5) France
6) Britain
7) Italy
8) Brazil
9) Spain
10)Canada
Ranking is good for Europeans...only that everyone (US included of course) is reducing its PIB at an average of 3%. China China is the only of the 10 that increases it at a spectacular 8%. India is just 11th but increasing it at an average of 6% so it certainly has already joined the first 10 and will continue to move on. Brazil is rather stationary but has all the space to move upwards as well. Russia is a horrible 13 (i.e. even behind a country like Spain!) and is currently terribly reducing at more than 5% since its fortunes depend largely on the global energy prices (thus it will continue to fluctuate).
So we saw the positions of EU countries in the world. What we see mostly is a very bad trend. Nice PIB & military are only signs of a recent nice past which is not of course the future. It is simple mathematics. Each little European country on its own has no future. In fact little countries like Greece will survive better if they become a jet-set destination for rich Chinese and Indians but can we have that future for countries like Germany and France? Will Germany and France accept their position as little compact countries which however really do not matter? It is not the reality today, it will be the reality in 20-30 years, we will all be here to see if things go on that way.
So how about viewing EU as a compact structure?
EU has more than 500 million people being the 3rd with 40% of China, 45% of India and 160% of 4th, USA.
EU has the 7th landmass in the world.
EU has the first PIB in the world clearly above US albeit reducing at a rate of 4% (while US reduces at a rate of 3%).
EU has the 3rd more powerful army after US and Russia and really well above the 3rd and 4th China and India. It is the only other army with global reach and soon with its own GPS. On top of that EU has its own space access and has worked along US and Russia in the international space station, thus being the 3rd space power.
I do not know if anyone has noted any trend yet.
Perpahs getting the world map and noting down the concentration of the world's ressources would make it more clear? If we noted 3 spots: 1) Russia, 2) Middle East, 3) Africa?
Who is the connecting spot of the three. Well it is not China, nor India, nor Brazil, nor US.
Europeans have to understand the underlying reality of the above. And that is what has to drive their strategy, if they will ever realise that they will have to develop a common strategy for their own good.
Complain about this comment
Re91: Well exactly like that. But as I said, why should we complain. It was clear from the beggining. None lied to us. It was an ECONOMIC union... and it was the economy thinging driving the political not the opposite. So it was bound to be a thingie for those bankoinvestors living between New York, London, Tokyo... playing at Brussels and holidaying in the Carribean. The question is about returning to real politics. How? I honestly do not know. But policy making has to overpass the finance. Europe has the weight to impose itself above aggressive but petty financial games. Finace is nothing. It is just a dream, a lie, printed paper, nowadays not even that, just numbers on screen. I know you cannot fight easily that (it is somethign that predated WWI afterall) but you can blackmail it. You can force it to make money along with you, not out of you.
That is why I shout... forget about financial figures: strategy strategy strategy, energy energy energy, military, military, military.
Complain about this comment
In a few words, Europe has to break off with its past. Breaking off with that means necessarily breaking off the traditional links with the US too. Its hard but there is no way out. US failing means European sinking with it. US manipulating the world into surviving as the first, means Europeans being the boxing sack - they won't be able to do better unless the US wishes so and frankly given the info I gave you above, there is absolutely no way US would like the EU to take a primary position.
EU has to become autonomous at least in strategy and military so as to fight off against its dependence in energy and ressources. Ressources are all around Europe, in neighbouring Russia, in Middle East, in Africa. In fact only Russia's ressources are quite ok to satisfy a huge part of the European needs. Russia is desperate to develop those links since its whole economy depends on that. Selling to Chinese is equally profitable but it is geostrategically more complicated for Russia since in reality there is even less trust between Russia & China than Russia and Europe.
Europe saying "we are afraid to commit to too much bying from Russians" is simply idiotic. If they don't buy from Russia they will buy from Middle East and Africa, perhaps Latin America. And there they have even less saying than in Russia (whose biggest commercial partner is the EU). EU with Russia can have a complementary approach. Russia sells energy, EU constructs, Russia buys. Russia as a controlled economy can direct its people buying the more expensive EU products than the Chinese ones on the basis of supporting its clients. There is nothing like that with the US. From there on co-operation at space is on much more egalitarian basis. Let alone military - there is no need for EU and Russia to merge into something deeper but merely be special partners. Such a partnership is the solution for both EU and Russia since each can cover the weaknesses of the other.
Well while this is the smartest thing to do, guess who does not like that. US. MAII might shout here his will to see the US out of NATO, out of Europe etc. thinking that will save money to US and prove the incapacity of Europe to stand alone but really that is exactly the most nightmarish scenario for US which not only will lose much of its reach around the world but even in its own continent it will start steadily losing ground to, say, Brazil that aims to lead the South American continent.
Complain about this comment
@84 MTE
"So let me get this straight: the PRIVATE financial sector causes a global crisis, the PRIVATE sector and the oh-so-sacred markets get us into the deepest recession since the 1930s... and somehow this is all the state's fault and we must accept a cut in welfare and public services?"
The politicians are to blame, because the began a devastating spiral of socializing debt.
They had those big financial institutions in front of them and their "experts" ( the same people who made them let the FED keep the interest rates low, which in effect lead to all this excess speculation) told them that those were too big to fail.
And they simply bought that lie.
They violated one of the most basic rules of economics.
You must take cuts, because those politicians were too stupid.
Most of them don`t know anything about finances and ecnomics and that`s a big problem.
I am not saying that speculators etc didn`t go mad and all out in a greed frenzy. But what this bailout effectively did, was give THEM the "out of prison" card.
Complain about this comment
To 91. At 10:59am on 26 May 2010, democracythreat
I think that deserves the 'blog of the week award'
Complain about this comment
There seems to be an obsession with "the markets" and "the banks" as the cause of the world's problems when the real cause is "the governments."
Markets and banks operate under rules and restrictions imposed by "the government." If government is indifferent to creating laws, auditing for compliance with the laws, and punishing transgressors, then that is where the responsibility lies. And it is true that people do get the government they deserve. In a democracy, if you think you have one, and you elect people who make promises that are impossible to keep because you like the sound of them, you elect people who are cozy with those most influential in markets and banks and therefore are left free to do what they please because nobody can or will fully investigate them, then you have nobody but yourselves to blame. If you live in a dictatorhship, you have a different problem. Liberty is bought and paid for with blood, that is the lesson of the American Revolution, one others including many later generations of Americans either never leared or forgot.
Democracy is no guarantee of good government. You elect bums, then that is what your government will be. Many governments including those in the financially most troubled places are not particularly democratic once you get past their form and down to their substance, are misguided and clueless about how to run an economy, and/or are corrupt and fraudulent. So where is the real blame? Yes, you get the government you deserve. If you think you are going to get something for nothng and never have to pay for it, then you are only fooling yourselves. Accept much less and pay for it as you go or take as much as you can grab and pay for all of it at once later on.
Europe's debts are now due, it's time to pay up for all those years of getting something not for nothing but for debt against the future. The future has arrived. Cutting expenses now is not a matter of choice, the credit card has reached its limit, there is no longer an alternative. America and Japan had better pay attention, their credit cards have a heavy tab on them already and they get more indebetted by the minute. Europe is in for big trouble IMO. First it refuses or (at least in large measure) it will refuse to accept that it can no longer live its privileged lifestyle. But beyond that, it not only doesn't have the warewithall to compete with economies with fewer such burdens, it will find it difficult or impossible to generate wealth to pay off its past debts. The numbers game where Europe pretends that its internal trading is anything more than a transfer or wealth where German banks lend to Greece to buy German goods to make the German economy look good on paper won't work either anymore. Markets are inefficient. It takes them a while to get the message, to catch up with facts, to draw obvious conclusions. There is still time to get out of Euro denominated assets but it won't last forever. Even if you believe that somehow Europe will muddle though and come out of this relatively unscathed, during the period of uncertainty, holding Euro denominated assets is IMO a foolish and unnecessary risk. I have no Euro assets at all and don't anticipate acquiring any.
Complain about this comment
@100 Nik
Nik, douze points!
At last, somebody who looks beyond the financial crisis and austerity measures, sees the real aim of the EU, the real necessity for Europe to survive in the new global world to come.
But apparently, Little Britain prefers to play the small fish in the big pond and believes that with The City and Housing they will maintain their independence and living standards in the future... Dream on
Complain about this comment
100. At 12:19pm on 26 May 2010, Nik wrote:
"In a few words ..."
EUpris: Nik! You! In a FEW words! Are you not feeling well?
Complain about this comment
'The Italian government has approved austerity measures worth 24 billion euros (£20bn; $29bn) for the years 2011-2012.
The announcement makes Italy the latest eurozone country to announce cuts in an effort to reduce the gap between spending and earnings.
Italy will take measures to reduce public sector pay and will put a freeze on new recruitment.
Public sector pensions and local government spending are also expected to be hit.
Some Italian workers have already been out protesting." [BBC]
Here you have you answer re 'welfare state'.
Protests in Greece, protests in Spain, protests in Italy, pretty soon protests in Ireland.
Those who grew up depending on the state and unable to fend for themselves in a free market economy will never agree on any significant reduction of their perks.
Period.
Markets know it, and markets react accordingly.
Just watch the ticker tape.
Complain about this comment
MA-II #103
"Markets and banks operate under rules and restrictions imposed by "the government." If government is indifferent to creating laws, auditing for compliance with the laws, and punishing transgressors, then that is where the responsibility lies. And it is true that people do get the government they deserve."
I disagree with the hidden assumption here: there are no non-communicating 'island-countries', each with their own markets, banks and "government". The markets and banks are global, and partly hidden from view (the off-shore part of finance, and the over-the-counter part of trading of derivatives). Hence the "government" of each country, in particular small countries such as Greece, has little grip on the behaviour of global market players such as some of the larger investment banks or bank holdings. Goldman Sachs can only be controlled by the USA government, and as long as that government does not do any serious regulation, despite the clear bumbling of Lloyd Blankfein in the US Senate hearing, there is not much that can be done about it by other governments.
The consistent refrain of accusing governments that they are overspending (which is to a certain extent true) is drowning in a lot of noise the voices calling for serious re-regulation of the banking sector, whose reckless behaviour caused the economic downturn in 2008. There is a huge transfer of wealth going on, to the benefit of financial interests whose contribution to the 'real' economy (producing goods for use by the community of citizens) is very close to zero. More and more people understand this, and do not like it a bit. The short sighted interest of those bankers will collide head-on with the long term interest of the citizens, and sooner or later the system will go in a French revolution mode, where heads will roll, and things will be ultimately stopped by a "whiff of grapeshot" or worse.
Complain about this comment
Nik;
"In a few words, Europe has to break off with its past. Breaking off with that means necessarily breaking off the traditional links with the US too."
"Well while this is the smartest thing to do, guess who does not like that."
Yes, the US should pull out of Europe lock, stock, and barrel. Europe has been a lead anchor around America's neck and it is time to get rid of it. Not just out of NATO but out of the UN, out of the WTO, out of everything. This may not be to the liking of American based global corporations who trade freely moving money, factories and other facilities, and people around the world like they were pawns on a chessboard but it would be in the best interest of average Americans. Trade should be negotiated on a bilateral basis with each country on terms most favorable to America, not to corporations. Europe would be free to sink or swim on its own.
"even in its own continent it [the US] will start steadily losing ground to, say, Brazil that aims to lead the South American continent.
It's just a guess but I'd bet that outside of Brazil and the US, far more people in the western hemisphere speak English and Portugese. As far as I can tell, Brazil produces no substitute for a few American products like Intel and AMD computer chips and Microsoft software just to name a few. Were American conceived, designed, and engineered products only manufactured in the United States we'd be the world's number one exporter again. That would suit me just fine.
Complain about this comment
@92 democracythreat
"This is happening not because of Romanians being misinformed or uneducated but is happening because the austerity measures to be adopted are striking the pensions with 15% cuts - from 117 Euro average - and public sector's salaries with 25% cuts - from less than 300 Euro average, a real death penalty for most... In Europe. Eastern Europe, but still Europe."
Speaking of which, how did they think that this could work, taking in these poor countries into the monetary union.
But as if this wasn`t bad enough, they even let people from those poor countries get in charge in Brussels.
If baffles me every time I think about it.
Did no German leader tell Brussels about how reunification went?
Complain about this comment
#109 - DurstigerMann
"Did no German leader tell Brussels about how reunification went?"
Very good point. Because reunification was an article of faith enshrined in the constitution, there was no democratic consultation in the former West Germany. If the citizens of that country had any idea how much reunification was going to cost, they might well have had second thoughts. If the DDR citizens had realised that the increased cost of living might have posed an open invitation to Polish artisans - especially in the building industry - to freely cross the border and undercut local pricing, they too might have had pause.
You have to have some sympathy with sentiment on the streets of Germany. At various stages, they have been expected to bail out a significant part of their own country, now Greece and who knows next. But both the Eurozone and the EU itself are mainly their creation. If public sentiment turns against them and clamour for the return of the DM grows, the Euro project is dead in the water. If the EU itself becomes contentious, the only option is to backslide into a looser free trade arrangement. Presumably this is why Merkel is pressing for more regulation in the financial sector and, possibly, a further integration treaty. Is she, one wonders, swimming against the tide of history?
Complain about this comment
@98: Nik, this time I agree 100 % with your lightening-fast speedwriting.
Complain about this comment
"Speaking of which, how did they think that this could work, taking in these poor countries into the monetary union."
I will tell you how: what these rich countries wanted was countries where labour is cheap, has absolutely no rights, where people can be sold any crap that they produce, but cannot sell elsewhere (either because they cannot be sold, or because they are so poisonous, etc that must not be sold in the developed world), and at last but not at least: because they needed some countries where leaders are utterly corrupt and they can take whatever they like, do whatever they like.
And guess what happened: mainly German and French companies moved their factories to Eastern Europe, where they treat people like animals, make them work at least twice as much as in their home countries and pay them almost nothing. They "bought" local companies for almost no money (thanks to the corrupted leaders), and then fired everyone. These companies even claim (and get) huge amount of money from those goverments (I am talking about 10.000.000 x Z /where Z > 1/ numbers) and pay almost no taxes. Also, they can put poison into rivers, cut trees, etc -literally anything they like.
And you know what is the nicest thing about it? Even though the EU's 2 main principles are free movement of labour and goods, they do not allow people from those countries to work in theirs, unless they get permission. So selling crap, exploiting people, poisoning rivers & soil, asking for government support for every major investment they do, paying no tax is OK, but when people who are trying to escape from that hell want to get work in Western Europe then they are cursed for taking the jobs of "real" EU citizens and must be begging for work permits.
And please, do not believe that the West supports those countries! They pay about 1 Euro for every 100 Euro they steal from them!
Complain about this comment
Sm********t;
The service that Goldman Sachs provided to the Greek government was legal under America law. That it was also legal for the Greek government to hide its true finances from its own people under Greek law is noboby's fault but the Greeks themselves. If they wanted to be told the truth, then it should have been a political issue of the highest importance to them and they should have voted for candidates who promised to enact full disclosure law and held them to their promises at subsequent elections. That they didn't is nobody's fault but their own. Now they seem angry at other people when the blame for it rests squarely on their own shoulders.
Complain about this comment
thernodious;
"You have to have some sympathy with sentiment on the streets of Germany."
Not one shred. People get the government they deserve and have to live with the consequences of what that government does to them. They elected them, they supported them, they are their own.
Germany didn't seem to mind when things seemed to be going well for them. They didn't mind when the megalomaniacs were plotting the takeover of Europe through a unified currency and political system. They didn't mind when they thought Deutchebank was riding high on the same horse of derivitives, CMOs, CDSs and other very risky investments American banks seemed to be raking profit in from. And they weren't the least bit displeased when their government vetoed the Security Council resolution that gave Saddam Hussein one last warning that if he didn't start to fully cooperate with the UN inspectors and end his shell game there could be military action. They also don't seem to mind that their soldiers haven't taken up arms in Afghanistan to actively combat the Taleban and al Qaeda under their obligation in a mutual defense treaty now that it was America and not Germany that was attacked. And you expect sympathy from me and other Americans for Germans? Fageddaboudit. I couldn't care less what happens to them now.
Complain about this comment
MA, I lost heart entirely and went to apologise to clinic today instead of all plans (brilliantly ? undermined). Tried to shove couple of thousand roubles into surgeon's uniform upper pocket as "pre-payment" for future.
Am collecting myself back together for heroic deeds re-newal. a la humpty-dumpty.
Phoenix life-style, critically looking back. at my past. and looking back at my future!!!
___________________
EUprize you are simply jealous.
Why "cheap"? (I am sure this part annoyed MA as well.
:o))))))))))))
Joking.
Seriously, MA is full of accomplishments but one thing you can't deny - he's always there, materialises when I need him.
I haven't read the threads for a week, nil. Open, in the conditions of aaaah, what do I see the first and last message.
_____________________
Niki, "Russia supplies, Europe builds, Russia buys, Europe... Russia... etc."
You mean - USSR again ??!!!!
:o))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Joking. Seriously, o what on earth can be had from us. (Don't even dream of it I mean , beware :o))))))))))))))))))))
Top of desires, to stay more or less in our (flexible) shores :o))))),
(we traditionally know only 2 borders for sure - Finland and China. and even the best of them! :o))))) No, Finland behaves. Can't say the same :o)))), of the blurring :o))))
so, stay in our plus/minus shores, retain the name (we grew fond of it. somehow :)) - and pass for a populated place (as min., to an undiscerning un? not a choosy, glance)
With your other idea, Russians buy European goods, this is easy indeed, anyway all becomes 10 times the price when it gets here (certified or not :o)))) and from whenever :o)))) - so we won't know the difference.
This is easy
Overall I think or systems are un-compatible with Europe (yet :o)))))
I mean, in terms of government fleecing we are moving more or less ear to ear :o)))), so Kremlin won't have to comply with any "alien" standards, in this respect
but the mini-Europe :o))) still retains 2 other bastions, which might go contradictory to Russian systems.
Namely - people still are priced expensive on your side
and, number two - some people can still be held accountable on your side for what they do.
Personal responsibility for actions, you know, aj jaj jaj :o)
(I am more and more thinking that the "dis-organised" reputation of Russia is a hype and an invented compliment.)
So, you see, on two of the handful of key parameters we are not peas and carrots (yet :o)))), Europe has to catch up on us :o))), in this respect. So easy gliding together will be quite eh un-probable.
Without a deadly fight those two aforementioned bastions won't be surrendered. :o)))))
(Deterring defects on your European side is thinking small) (Petty-cash style) (Have to say something negative of others as well, haven't I? :o))))
___________________
Of latest news I am sorry dear Nik we are building a nuclear station in Turkey.
Signed, this South Stream is getting no cheaper than the Northy one :o)))), day by day. Permission to pass by Turkey shore swapped for a nuclear power station.
Turkey has been graceful about it :o))), and to sweeten the pill cancelled visas for Russians entirely - and we for them. Which I think is hardly a grace, as who ever saw a Russian re-locating to Turkey.
Anyway we are bsnss partners now around the South Stream tube (and 100 metres, say, away off from the axis of it :o))).
Read several Turkish commentators on the deal; one of the analysts criticised us for looking for affection in it'l relations. Like, forget this silly approach, countries don't fall in love with each other, weird beliefs of your Kremlin. Overcome your natural resistence this is silly and all.
"Think of it as marriage, not love affair".
(at which point the Russian journalist ( a girl) flopped down from the chair :o)))) "Marriage - without love?!!!"
:o))))
Anyway.
Complain about this comment
From Voxeu.org
The facts: Internal versus external debt burdens
The PIGS’s problem is that a significant share of their debt is external (see Table 1).
•Greece, for example, has approximately 79% of government gross debt held by non-residents and has net international investment position of -82.2% of GDP. Interest payments on public debt represented nearly 40% of Greece’s already large 2009 budget deficit – and this is set to increase.
•Italy, by contrast, does not face the same challenge. Italy’s public debt reached 115% of GDP at the end of 2009, but Italy’s net international investment position were just about -19% of GDP. So, much of Italy’s interest burden is paid to Italians, and some of it is paid back to the government as taxes. As a result, Italy’s public debt dynamics are better than those of the PIGS.
Complain about this comment
105. At 1:06pm on 26 May 2010, EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
"""EUpris: Nik! You! In a FEW words! Are you not feeling well?"""
Yes you are 100% right. I have to say in a lot of words. I do apologise but I was in a mood of analysing a bit (no a lot! hehe...). At least keep the basic line of my thought. Pay attention - this is not at all about "avenging the US that became from ally a "pump" nor a suddern Russophilia. I repeat that the question for Europe is to develop its own independent, unique voice in the world and to do so it has clearly to position itself on the planet. Before arriving there, it would be adviseable first especially for countries like Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Spain to position themselves and their position as being alone in the world. Whoever thinks he would be better off alone then let him jump on his little boat and float away while the rest remain onboard the ship trying to set it on the correct track.
108. At 1:44pm on 26 May 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote... saying that he is still in favour of US stepping out of Europe.
Marcus, when I support EU cutting off the dense ties with US is a cold calculation it is not at all about me coming from a country disaffected by the US (actually we were more dissafected by our "good" allies British than the US which only "inherited" us by Britain afterall...) and trying speak of avenge. Cold calculation is 1+1=2. EU buys few ressources from US and imports not really a lot apart specific markets (as you pointed computer technology, software etc.) and while it sells a lot to the US it does not sell anything close to what China sells there. EU naturally buys more from the Middle East and potentially can buy even more from Russia where it sells really a lot being its main trading partner. So while there are some reasons, there are not there the full financial reasoning to support all these ties with the US if we don't take into account the recent historical background, WWII, Cold war. In Cold War Europe needed US against the big bad wolf. Today what Europe needs America apart from whatever financial transactions? Security?
I am in full knowledge of the complexity of US-EU-Russian affairs and the intrinsically intermingled European and American financial interests and the links among American and European investors - of course, it had been Europeans who divested here and invested there a mere 120 years ago, some of these had sons who are still living at a very old age. But these ties can no longer dictate the full range of European policies. EU has to learn to present to the world a fully autonomous policy. Think the whole game, not just a part of it. Unfrotunatly the late events proved the opposite... under the first difficulty EU countries run behind their more local interests completely losing the bigger picture. This has to change. And remaining in the shallow waters of playing with financial statistics has been proven the wrong way. Even if I push a magical button and erase all EU economies' debts that won't change the strategic deficit of European countries each on its own as well as all together: sooner or later and no matter if they take out all their so called "overly expensive social-welfare regimes", they will find themselves in similar trouble because the problem is not just financial indicators nor inner financial policies (and the welfare state is merely an inner policy) but is more enlarged having to do with the actual positioning of each EU country and their lot as a unit in the world. The issue for EU is to avoid a future where not only as a country but also as a group of countries bear the comment "Germany? France? EU? Who cares?".
Complain about this comment
The latest BBC´s `Global Business ´ (25th May)
´Peter Day Talks to Professor Naill Ferguson of Harvard University´
May allow some contributors to put their own countries problems into proper perspective.
Highly Recommended !
Complain about this comment
"They also don't seem to mind that their soldiers haven't taken up arms in Afghanistan to actively combat the Taleban and al Qaeda under their obligation in a mutual defense treaty now that it was America and not Germany that was attacked."
Well, I have my own opinion about Germans, but not attacking a non-existing enemy seems to make sense to me. If the American Empire wants to attack countries, then it should not expect others to fight for them. (I know the usual lie about WWII, that you guys saved Europe, but the reality is that you waited until the game was almost over, and then came here to get as much as you could for almost nothing.)
And just one more thing: I do not like how the American Empire attacks countries so that it can take oil, and other resources that it needs (or even trade with drugs -> see the Afghanistan chapter), but what I hate the most is that it even pretends to be the suffering one, and the one who is trying to help others. Maybe with the intellectual of an average American this kind of crap makes sense, but trust me, the rest of the world is not entirely stupid.
Complain about this comment
MA-II #113
I don't care whether the specific point about the Goldman Sachs trick to Greece is legal in the USA or not. It was a selfish, destructive act. I agree that the Greek cooking of the books is indeed their responsibility. But what I want to see is a curtailment of the actions of Goldman Sachs kind of behaviour by the USA government, not the current entanglement of interests of former Goldman Sachs people in the US government. Do you really think it was in the interests of the US taxpayer to hand over 10 billion dollars to GS without strings attached ? Do you really think that all the taxpayers in 'Main Street', USA, are happy with GS type bankers which ruined their economy ? Shouldn't the separation between casino type banks and ordinary deposit banks be reintroduced (i.e. reinstating a Glass-Steagall act) ? Shouldn't we focus on that, rather than flog the Greeks once more ? Don't you know that in the USA you 'move on', and get things done if the political will is there ? Please stop pointing the finger at others in Europe when some cleaning up can be done at home. There is only one world, and you cannot retreat the USA at once to the back side of the moon even if you think it is in your narrow interest.
Complain about this comment
I have some bad news for you WA. As Russia's fortunes rise and fall with the price of crude oil, in your absence oil has now become as free as sea water. I'm surprised some enterprising people haven't come up with a scheme not to driill it from deep under the ocean floor at great expense but to merely skim the surface and separate it from the water on which it will float and do this at very low cost. So anyone who wants some free crude oil can come to the Gulf of Mexico where British Petroleum has made it as free as the sea :-) And in the end when the oil is finally collected and cleaned up, it will prove to be the most expensive oil BP ever found.
Complain about this comment
@ #91 democracythreat
I'd like to add my salute, as many before did. Great post!
Ash
Complain about this comment
Nik;
"Marcus, when I support EU cutting off the dense ties with US is a cold calculation "
I see it the same way. Keeping American troops in Europe is a very expensive activity that brings no benefit to America or Americans that I can see. I calculate America would be richer and better off if it pulled out. I don't see any real American interests in Europe. America's interest and focus should be much closer to home.
"I am in full knowledge of the complexity of US-EU-Russian affairs and the intrinsically intermingled European and American financial interests and the links among American and European investors - of course"
Then severing those intermingling ties is long overdue. A government cannot at once see to the interest of its own people if some of those people have a stake in other nations whose interests are at times diametrically opposed to its own. Severing those ties would simplify and clarify where America's priorities should be placed. And so I would tell GE, GM, Ford, IBM, if you want to sell your products to Europeans, Asians, or whomever, fine but manufacture them here in the US to create American jobs and if you don't we will tax the hell out of you and the products you re-import into the US so that people who want to manufacture things here in the US and create American jobs will have a fighting chance to compete against you on your own turf.
"Even if I push a magical button and erase all EU economies' debts that won't change the strategic deficit of European countries each on its own as well as all together: sooner or later and no matter if they take out all their so called "overly expensive social-welfare regimes", they will find themselves in similar trouble because the problem is not just financial indicators nor inner financial policies (and the welfare state is merely an inner policy) but is more enlarged having to do with the actual positioning of each EU country and their lot as a unit in the world."
The EU should have considered that when it enlarged. But all it was interested in was in forming an entity with enough size to confront the United States or as Chirac put it, to challenge it by creating a multipolar world. Confrontation and challenge is what Europe wanted. Well now it has it. It is bigger than the US, its GDP is greater and it is a total flop. That is what happens when you build something not for what it can accomplish for itself but for the purposes of diminishing the accomplishments of other people. Europe wanted an economic and political war with America, it waged it, and it lost.
"The issue for EU is to avoid a future where not only as a country but also as a group of countries bear the comment "Germany? France? EU?"
You still don't get it. The EU doesn't have a future. It's on its death bed. What you are hearing in all these moans and groans is its death rattle. As for what comes next, to quote you;....."Who cares?" I for one don't.
Complain about this comment
CSI;
"Well, I have my own opinion about Germans, but not attacking a non-existing enemy seems to make sense to me."
Three thousand people will killed in the United States in one day by this non existant enemy.
America doesn't have an empire and never did. Unless you include American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands as an empire.
As for stealing oil, look at how we are stealing British Petroleum's. We take it directly out of their well and bring it right up to the shores of the United States to be freely harvested by anyone in America who wants it for the taking. How wonderful it is that we steal everyone elses oil and don't have to pay to import it. What a great advantage that has given the USA. Who else deserves it more?
Complain about this comment
Sm********t;
"Do you really think it was in the interests of the US taxpayer to hand over 10 billion dollars to GS without strings attached ?"
I think the string was that they had to pay it back. And as I recall they did and with the agreed upon interest. Since their bankruptcy would have been another disaster for America, it was in the interest of US taxpayers and other Americans to do that. It was the correct decision in that case.
You cannot shift the responsibility for failure to fully and accurately disclose the condition and details of the Greek economy by the Greek government to the Greek people by dancing around with your emotional outbursts. That was their responsibility to demand it until it was done and no one elses. It seems to me that many others especially in Europe including Britain are in exactly the same boat. When it comes as a shock that Britain's government hasn't paid for necessary military equipment for its troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the first question that comes to mind is why wasn't this known much sooner? Why wasn't the military budget for less than secret programs such as providing body armor not available to public scrutiny all along? Then comes the next thought, there wasn't money available for body armor when there were MP's dog's nails to be clipped and swimming pools to be cleaned. Those expenses took priority.
Complain about this comment
MA, @121, yes we are properly worried with your spenddrift attitude.
Spendrift? ? ? looks wrong. anyway. you spend it and drift it away definitely
our newspapers are full of crazy engineers with amateur schemes how to plug it, all are interested. the most promising chap sent his Great Plan to BP 2 weeks ago, they confirmed they got it, and no news :o( everafter :o))))
But they also told him they have heaps of suggestions from all sources and are analysing.
Our winning idea was to plug it by a syringe with cement,
pressing down cement into it, by a huge syringe kind of. But if the point is to make oil finally available to all, who's got a bucket and can walk down to his respective sea-shore then of course :o))))
Complain about this comment
And what MA have you done with Saakashvili again? He builds a big nice column, hired a Spanish architect, in teh centre of everything in Georgia. The monument is called "In the memory of Georgian heroes who fell fighting Russia" :o))))))))))))))
A huge glass kind of screw-driver, with each and every hero name planned to be incised. Starts from revolution time Georgians who fought communists, then a break, then come the names of Georgians killed in their war with Abkhasia in 1992-1993, then a break, then the names of the heroes fallen in the 5-day, August 2008, SO affair.
:o))))))))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
@114 MAII
"Germany didn't seem to mind when things seemed to be going well for them. They didn't mind when the megalomaniacs were plotting the takeover of Europe through a unified currency and political system."
We, the citizens, weren`t asked.
There is no democracy in Germany.
Complain about this comment
dt #91;
You left an important part of the story out;
"Your half witted red haired step brother (the corporate media) opens the strange letter and discovers..."
"You go to the trustee for advice, and find that he is fast asleep. When he wakes, you discover that..."
During all the time between the time they inherited the house and the time they made these discoveries, nobody cared what was going on. If anyone even suggested they try to find out or that something not quite right was happening they were told to shut up by the rest. Nobody wanted to spoil the house party that was perpetually being thrown with the money that was being supposedly embezzled. Nor could they claim they were too busy out working to earn money to pay for it all, they were really busy enjoying the champagne and caviar and showing it off to boast to the neighbors how rich and smart they all were.
Why doesn't America have all of those wonderful social safety nets including national health insurance paid for by the government? Well now we see that the Europeans couldn't afford all those luxuries they were enjoying either while they were pretending they could. America had better rethink its own social safety nets and what it actually can afford before it goes down the same path beyond redemption the way Europe did.
Complain about this comment
WA;
"Our winning idea was to plug it by a syringe with cement,"
I see at least two problems with that. First the cement won't stay where it is put because pressure from the oil below will push it right out before it can solidify. Second, the slippery oil will not let the cement to adhere to the inside of the hole. If they can apply enough pressure to keep the cement in, they could just fill the hole with something already solid and place enought weight on top of it to keep it there for example by pouring cement on top of it. I think that's something behind the idea of what they call "the junk shot."
One good thing about drilling below the ocean for oil is that when the oil is gone, they can let the ocean drain into the space where the oil came out of. This could lower sea level to compensate for the rise due to the melting of the polar ice caps from global warming :-) What if all the oceans mostly drained out, think of how much more land there would be to fight over in the future :-)
I do hope the oil doesn't reach the beautiful beaches of the Caribbean. I really enjoy those beaches and it would be a shame if they were covered in sludge. It would also wreck their economies since many of them depend on tourism. More expense for BP to deal with if it happens. Warren Buffet doesn't look all that smart to me investing in BP.
Complain about this comment
MA, "America doesn't have an empire and never did".
No, I am not going to say usual things :o).
I thought, curious, simply, worthy noting, as a ? those unusual things.
Compared to us; we don't have an empire and feel we do :o))))
Or, like, "it's normal to be in".
While you don't want it but have. And don't understand what you have. Or, like, understand nil in the business :o)))
Like, some don't see sense in mushrooms.
It's because I think you are empire-driven for money, from necessity, kind of, and for profit, well, "profit" :o))) the word, these days :o)))
Anyway - it's not a heart-felt desire, to have an empire, by , say, David, or MaudDib. When it is - it is a result of your mind-boggling teachings, read propaganda (USA is the salvations and spiritual centre of the universe) AND business interest driven spread.
So, like, propaganda mis-placing brains of ordinary Americans' result PLUS business interests. In the reversed order, business interests drive, schools follow behind :o))
While a Russian is a natural :o))))))
On genetic level :o))))
Not after money, at that, in the drive for spread :o)))) (far more dangerous - authentic maniacy condition :o)))))))
Like some live in water (crocodiles), others - on trees? eh? ? who? anyway, butterflies. there are amoebas. etc. and we are another life form :o)))
I remembered now, there was a popular French writer visiting, last week or so, a chap very much in fashion, temporarily forgot the name.
He was asked the usual questions, how do you like it in Russia, etc.
Among other things he commented he thought before Russians are all nationalists and patriotic. Having spent time here (composing something) he revised his views "not patriots. but all born Empire-lists, like, nee" :o))))
Complain about this comment
@smroet #71:
The geniuses in the US Congress who enabled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy all the substandard mortgages from the direct lenders (largely banks) surely have some responsibility for the "blow-up" in the financial markets. Most big US banks have already repaid their TARP loans to the US Treasury. In contrast, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac already owe over $100 Billion to the Treasury and continue to show losses, quarter after quarter. W/o Fannie 's and Freddie's participation, the "blow-up" of the financial end of the economy would have been much smaller. W/o Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Dodd, and the Community Reinvestment Act, there would have been no housing bubble in the 2000s, Bush II would have lost to John Kerry in 2004, and there would have been no financial "blow-up" at all. Let us give credit where credit is due.
Btw, the "Financial Reform Act" currently in progress does nothing to add adult supervision to the activities of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac playing in their sandbox.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
Drugstore Man;
"We, the citizens, weren`t asked.
There is no democracy in Germany."
Bravo! You must have read what I've said all along, there is no democracy in the rest of Europe either. The only time anyone was asked after the real plan became obvious was when the French and Dutch voted down the Constitution. But dictatorships don't take no for an answer because they know better than voters what is best for the country and so they circumvented the vote with Lisbon in what looks superficially like a quasi-legal mechanism to accomplish more or less the same goal.
So if you don't have a democracy, what do you and your fellow Germans intend to do about it? Will there be demonstrations until the government listens to the majority or a revolution? If you do nothing, it looks like your dictatorship is about to give your pension money and savings to the Greeks...and the Portugese...and the Spanish, Italians, Irish, and whoever is else comes along. That's a rough one.
Complain about this comment
With mainly the lower income groups suffering the brunt of "tightening the belt" and all the bull that we hear from our and the European governments; why don't we talk about the amount of savings that could be made if all European MPs and all the Euro civil servants had income and pensioncuts. I reckon it could save several millions euros per year. They are the ones to set the example! This year about 350 Euro civil servants will leave on early retirement with a 9000€ per month pension. other examples are: Roger Grass,clerk of the European Court of Justice (injustice ?)will leave with a 12500€/month pension !!!!!!!!!!!. Giovanni Butarelli, deputy controller of the "data protection" will acquire (november 2010) a pension of 1515€/month after onl 23 Months of service!!!!! The public prosecutor,Damaso Ruiz-JaraboColomer leaves with 14000€/month. Total it all up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eurotechnocrats want us to work longer, to retire older to get our miserable pension but they don't have to, they get theirs and a lot more a lot sooner. The Euro government should be the first to TIGHTEN THE BELT
Complain about this comment
#129
"Why doesn't America have all of those wonderful social safety nets including national health insurance paid for by the government?"
Because you're even more broke than Europe and because you dont, never have and never will give a damn about your poor and vulnerable. Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
WA,
I think Nik has good intentions, good ideas, interesting statistics and a benevolent style of writing.
That said, ..I think NAFTA should invite Russia into IT's free market. That would upset Everybody.
Russia has "lots" of important resources and we in the USA/Canada/Mexico would fit right in with Russian diversity.
You could buy goods from Mexico, (cheapest prices) that Mexico imports from the USA and Canada.
And we could, at nice high prices, plunder your Siberian resources.
Much luck to you in your travails.:)
Complain about this comment
108 Homer Simpson says:
"Were American conceived, designed, and engineered products only manufactured in the United States we'd be the world's number one exporter again. That would suit me just fine."
But Homer, according to your usual ramblings Europe and practically the rest of the developed world are about to go to hell in a handcart. So who will have the money to buy all your lovely goods?
Complain about this comment
To WebAliceinwonderland (127):
And they will have a movie... Go to YouTube and type "georgia renny harlin movie trailer". The movie is directed by Renny Harlin and stars Andy Garcia, Dean Cain, Ruppert Friend, Richard Coyle and Val Kilmer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%282010_film%29
Just be happy that Renny isn't as good as he used to be when he directed such notable movies as A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger and The Long Kiss Goodnight.
Complain about this comment
"So if you don't have a democracy, what do you and your fellow Germans intend to do about it?"
If I was a German, I would probably wait until Americans find out that they live in a real dictatorship and once they manage to get rid of their leaders, then I would try to copy what they did.
Because from many aspects Europe is a lot more democratical then the US, even if far from perfect. US is driven entirely according to the needs of (and by) multinational corporations, and your laws (most of all the recent ones, made adfter the self-attack at 09/11) are sometimes brutally anti-democratic.
So Marcus, please, come back after you woke up and tell us what you intend to do about your (lack of) democracy.
Complain about this comment
@ #128 "There is no democracy in Germany."
and
@ #133 "Bravo! You must have read what I've said all along, there is no democracy in the rest of Europe either. "
As to Europe, I've made my point clear in previous posts. As to democracy in Germany... well, we might well debate this issue. However, let me remind you that West-German democracy is, what the Western Allies approved of. The only way of democracy, accepted by the US, the UK and France in 1949 (taking into account German experiences in 1918 and thereafter). And please let me remind you that the Germany of today still follows -in principle- exactly those rules that were put down for the German democracy after WW2, under approval, and pressure of especially the US and the UK (and France)!
And it is a democracy. It's definetely not basis-democratic. It's a parliamentary democracy founded on parties, definetely worth criticising, since parties are prone to lobbyism and corruption. Don't please try to tell me, this were different in the US, UK or France. At least we've got a proportional voting system, which is probably more democratic than what's been going on in the UK - or the US.
And MA II, I'd like to refer to you here, because this was a sensible statement, it went along the ways of 'we all deserve what we elected'. True.
We all deserve, however, that those we elected did, what we deserve, good service to our nation, good service to Europe, and good service to mankind, if possible.
Ash
Complain about this comment
garethannddylan
Re #134
Admire Your optimism, applaud Your proposals, endorse every word of Your comment.
Now the reality: You are suggesting, the EUropean Union, that greatest, most exploitative, hugely vanity-greed-driven political exercise the like of which has not been seen in EUrope since Emperor Nero's Coliseum excesses should make an exemplar contribution to show support/concern for those millions of ordinary Citizens the EU has ignored for 20 post-Maastricht years!
You see those 10 squadron of flying pigs circling the moon - - well, You will - - BEFORE the EUropean Union even considers reducing its bountiful outlay on itself!
Complain about this comment
Re: 134. At 7:17pm on 26 May 2010, garethanddylan
EUpris: Thank you for your informative and valuable post.
I applied to be a teacher in an "EU" school. I would have earned well over three times my British salary when I include the perks. Of that over two-thirds would have been tax free.
Every penny spent on the "EU" is wasted.
Every day we are "members" is a wasted day.
Please post your information elsewhere as well.
Complain about this comment
Maggie McGuire;
"But Homer, according to your usual ramblings Europe and practically the rest of the developed world are about to go to hell in a handcart. So who will have the money to buy all your lovely goods?"
India and China :-)
If you are nice to us, we'll send you a MacMeal and a box of KFC. And who in Europe will produce food when there's nobody left to keep inefficient French farmers from going bankrupt by paying them subsidies?
Complain about this comment
One of my fantastic birthday presents is "Low-GI Vegetarian Cookbook." Written by Rose Elliot and published by the BBC.
On page 164 is written:
"Then there's stevia, an intensely sweet white powder made from a herb, Stevia rebaudiana. It's used in about 40 percent of manufactured sweet products in Japan and readily available in most countries of the world - but not in the UK because it is illegal to sell it. The European Scientific Commission refused to approve it 'due to lack of information supporting the safety of the product'. An odd decision since stevia has been grown and used for centuries in many countries."
I don't want there to be a "European" organisation that has that sort of power over us.
Complain about this comment
WA;
Having money and influencing people is not the same as having an empire. Saudi Arabia has a lot of money but they have no empire. America was invented for making money. In fact it was discovered because someone was trying to find a way to get to India to bring back spices to make money. It's Revolution was fought and its independence won over money, not land. In the words of Calvin Coolidge; "the Business of America is Business." That is why most people come here. The land of opportunity is about the opportunity to make money. Like it or not, that is what much of human nature is about, the desire for money and the things money can buy. There's an old saying that goes...money isn't everything but it sure beats whatever is in second place.
Is America broke? Well its governments are. There are about 70,000 governments in the United States and I'd say most of them are in anything from moderate to serious financial trouble. But we've been there before and gotten out of it, we'll get out of it again. Probably inflate our way out of it and back to the top somehow but not soon enough for Europe, maybe not even soon enough for China and Japan. America's government is doing everything possible to keep from inflating the currency and so far it has managed to but I don't think it will stave off hyper inflation forever. When all those bills for the Treasury obligations come due, it will have no choice but to print enough to pay it back. It can't collect enough taxes because there not only isn't enough money around for that, but it would send the US back into a depression.
As for "cultural influence" nobody forces anyone to watch American movies or television programs, listen to American music, eat American fast food, buy and use American computers (built around American CPU chips) with American software. People around the world just like those things. Why did we invent them? Because the people who thought them up successfully found a way to make money, lots of it when they created them. We like them too. That is why not only those already here but those around the world who have these ideas will come here to exploit them. We let them keep some of that money, we don't tax it all away from them.
Complain about this comment
95. At 11:37am on 26 May 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
"EUPris
No, You didn't miss it: They just didn't publish it & for once the blabbermouth buffoon Barroso was prevailed upon to keep his avaricious tongue out of the way!
You are going to love this (NOT):
At the recent meeting attended by Hague, Osborne etc. in Brussels the EU Budget was discussed & it was agreed that contributions to it by each Member Nation will not be reduced by even 0.001% for the forthcoming 2 years.
So, there You have it: Despite all 27 nations on the cusp of substantial Public Spending cutbacks the largesse & gravy-train of Brussels continues unabated!
Go on, LOL, go on, I double-dare You!"
CBW: Thank you for your informative and valuable post. I hope people will quote it on other websites and on blogs on this website.
LOL? I can't afford to laugh every time I think about how sick the "EU" is. When would I get the time to breathe in?
Complain about this comment
CSI;
"So Marcus, please, come back after you woke up and tell us what you intend to do about your (lack of) democracy."
I'd pay close attention to what happens here on election day. We might see something of an bloodless French Revolution. Off with their....hanging chads :-)
Complain about this comment
Jukks, I never heard of those, aforementioned and all, films. I think we won't know of Georgia either :o))))
Complain about this comment
Well. Unless Izvestia advertises it for us. It happens, type "Guys, have a look on Amazon or wherever. Nasty Georgia, yet again ..."
:o))))
Complain about this comment
#128 Durstigermann
We have no Democracy in the USA or the UK either !
So don´t worry about it.
Just wait and see which citizens of `Democratic´ countries are better looked after by their governments as the Global crises spreads.
I think Marx explained the problem after visiting England ?
Complain about this comment
David, thank you. Luck in lack indeed required very much so. And please apply your super and natural skills!
Complain about this comment
Anger over the BP oil spill among Americans has been building to a crecendo or at least that's the way the news media here are reporting it. CNN, hardly an extreme view of the news the way some would characterize Fox on the right or MSNBC on the left is telling it that way. It has become Obama's Katrina. The government and his administration have been portrayed as slow to react, inept, and ineffective. Also as being much to lax with the oil industry allowing them to drill when they had no real plans to deal with this kind of accident.
The "top kill" strategy is being implimented by BP now. We don't know how long it will be before we know whether or not it will work. It may be several days, even close to a week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10167666.stm
Meanwhile people keep asking what will be done if it doesn't work. Nobody seems to have an answer for that. It won't be possible to drill a so called "relief well" until August by which time half the Gulf of Mexico will be filled with oil. If all of the oceans of the world become filled with oil....then it looks like our oil supply problems will be over (and Russia will go broke WA.) Perhaps someone will figure out a way to make money out of selling unpolluted seawater when there isn't much of that left.
Complain about this comment
WA, I think you've got Georgia on your mind;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thls_tMuFkc
Complain about this comment
#140 Ashkar
You are confusing this blogs ´ intellectuals ´ with facts which do not interest them !
The possibility that Germany is perhaps one of the few of the Worlds Democracies, will give them serious mental disruptions.
Especially when they realize THEIR governments are responsible for it.
Complain about this comment
144. At 9:29pm on 26 May 2010, EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
"I don't want there to be a "European" organisation that has that sort of power over us."
In 1991, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import. The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety". This ruling was controversial...
Stevia occurs naturally, requiring no patent to produce it. As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the FDA acted in response to industry pressure...
Stevia leaf and extracts are now available as dietary supplements (1995)
Rebaudioside A is available (December 2008) as a food additive.
08-Sep-2009
The French government has approved the use of stevia sweeteners with 97 per cent purity rebaudioside A (Reb A), officially opening up the first EU market for products containing the much-anticipated ingredient.
While full EU approval for stevia sweeteners is still dependent on a scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), France has taken advantage of window that allows individual member states to approve ingredients for a limited two year period.
The European Food Safety Authority is conducting a safety review and is expected to permit stevia extract to be used in the EU member states in 2010.
A report was issued from this review, on March 10, 2010, indicating that steviol glycosides are safe up to an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight/day, but that those levels are likely to be exceeded at the proposed maximum use levels in both adults and children.
So why has the UK not done the same as France?
Not having a clue but blaming the EU
Enjoy the cooking...
Complain about this comment
Cool_Brush_Work
When did Britain introduce Democracy ?
Oh, I forgot you do not answer my questions.
Perhaps any other Brit can answer the question ?
Complain about this comment
@140 ashkar
"And it is a democracy. It's definetely not basis-democratic. It's a parliamentary democracy founded on parties, definetely worth criticising, since parties are prone to lobbyism and corruption. Don't please try to tell me, this were different in the US, UK or France. At least we've got a proportional voting system, which is probably more democratic than what's been going on in the UK - or the US."
What you are writing is true, it was foced upon us by the allies of ww2.
And that`s the problem, because they wanted a weak central government. Therefore we got 16 federal states (of which 3 are mere cities) which have their own parliaments, ministers and Prime Minister.
Our whole system is built upon a deep distrust towards the sovereign - the citizens.
The German democracy is most certainly different from the US democracy.
The US senate is structured much more democratic than the Federal Council of Germany.
In Germany, the Federal Council composes of the 16 governments of the federal states which leads to nothing but a farce (fraction discipline).
For the US-senate, you vote the person.
For the German Federal Council, you vote a party in the federal state elections. It`s like the US-governors were sitting in the Senate and they brought along their fellow party members in whose election you did have no say. You just voted for the governor/his party.
No American in his right mind would want to adopt our system.
Don`t even need to mention grassroots democracy, that would be like day to night compared to our system.
The lack of direct democracy is just the tip of the iceberg.
If you are interested in this issue, I recommend you to read "Die Deutschlandakte" written by Hans Herbert von Arnim.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
The same question to you.
The `back of the bus´ was democracy ?
Complain about this comment
noisy little acorn;
When 79% of the people in a country don't want their hard earned money to be sent to Greece to bail them out but the government ignores them and sends it out anyway and the people have no recourse, it is not a government of the people, by the people, or for the people, it is a government of elites who think they know better what's in the peoples' best interest better than the people know themselves. That is not democracy, that is dictatorship. That is Europe.
Complain about this comment
noisly little acorn;
"Marcus
The same question to you.
The `back of the bus´ was democracy ?"
If the other passengers voted that's where you must sit, then that is democracy. If I were on that bus with you, I'd have voted that way too.
Complain about this comment
156. At 10:25pm on 26 May 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
When did Britain introduce Democracy ?
I only can give a Greek point of view:
NEVER
DHMOKRATIA means democracy AND republic, so it is very hard for Greeks to understand the difference.
BYW, during the Athens Olympic Opening ceremony, the Greek president was announced in the English version as the "President of the Democracy"
They rectified this for the closing ceremony...
Complain about this comment
MA-II #125
Thank you for answering question 1, out of 5 questions in #120. I am waiting for the other 4 answers. Please do not confuse 4 more questions with 'emotional outbursts'. It does not do you any good to dodge my questions by asserting such nonsense. Either you engage in debate, or you keep prattling and preaching like a broken record. There is no middle way. I documented your inconsistency on the question of conquest and settlements with regard to the Irish vs. the Israel / Palestine situation. Despite my efforts, you do not seem to grasp even the most elementary arithmetics about trade surpluses of the EU and of Germany. What do you want : keep on bellowing "America good, Europe bad, America good, Europe bad, etc."? We have to eternally suffer the Ratskeller in the Bordeaux trade fare? You really think that the French living then are the same as the Europeans living now? Give us a break, please. The best of your comments are interesting, but the bulk of it is below par.
Complain about this comment
#157 Durstigermann
The British system is based on `the Sovereign ´ deeply mistrusts the citizens !
That was why the ´questioners´were shipped off to Australia -- or don´t you know that ?
Complain about this comment
#160 MarcusAurellius
Hitler had the same opinion ?
Complain about this comment
sm********t;
"But what I want to see is a curtailment of the actions of Goldman Sachs kind of behaviour by the USA government, not the current entanglement of interests of former Goldman Sachs people in the US government."
What you want is full public disclosure of every transaction by every individual. That will not and must not happen.
The confidentiality of an investor's portfolio is clearly defined in American law. If a single entity owns more than 10% of a corporation (I think that is the number) then public disclosure is required otherwise it is nobody's business except the investor's and the broker's. There are exceptions for trades in a stock where the individual is an officer of the corporation. The US government only gets into it if there is an impropriety, if there is an illegal transaction, if there is a transaction which deals in illegal activities like drug smuggling or money laundering, or if Federal income tax is owed on it. I don't have the right to know from your broker where you invested your money and you have no right to know mine and we shouldn't find out unless we decide to voluntarily disclose that to each other. The Bill of Rights guarantees that a person has a right to privacy in their personal papers and this is an extension of that principle.
The disclosure of what the Greek government does with the money of the Greek people is a matter for them to settle among themselves, not for Goldman Sachs.
You would do far better to ask about the investments GS sold to institutions that it engineered and then bet against itself. According to many experts I've heard, it will be difficult for the government to make a case that those who sold the investments were aware of how they were created, by whom, and that GS betting against them was fraudulent. There will have to be concrete evidence legally obtained, a tough burden of proof.
I have said many times that the repeal of the Glass Steagall act was a major factor contributing to the recent depression and should be re-enacted and modernized to include investment instruments which didn't exist when it was first passed in the 1930s. I agree that breaking down the distinction and barrier between investment banks and commercial banks with its repeal was a terrible mistake and I was horrified when I heard Greenspan endorse the repeal. I could hardly belive it. Therefore, I always had it in the back of my mind that another depression was possible but I never thought I'd live long enough to see it happen. That is because I ddin't know about the CDSs and was only dimly aware of the CMOs until around early 2008.
Complain about this comment
noisy little acorn, I am not going to get into a long convoluted debate or discussion with you over theories about the tyranny of the majority and how American law evolved to make discrimination in places of public accomodation illegal. This is far to complex and an unreasonable diversion from the topic of this thread and I won't participate in it. Most of the people who post here barely understand the mostbasic concepts of democracy never having experienced it themselves to appreciate the nuances this argument has and how it changed American society. Make all of the accusations you want to. Had I been on the bus with you, I'd probably have voted with my feet to get off and take a different bus.
Complain about this comment
160. At 10:48pm on 26 May 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"If the other passengers voted that's where you must sit, then that is democracy. If I were on that bus with you, I'd have voted that way too."
A very sad and a very revealing post. So much for democracy in the USA.
Complain about this comment
MA-II #165
Thanks Marcus, that answers my question 3, now still question 2, 4 and 5 to go and we are done. I was sure that you could do it. It is important that these things are pointed out clearly. That is what is occasionally not emphasized by our friendly hosts (to put it mildly).
Complain about this comment
142 EUprisoner wrote:
"I applied to be a teacher in an "EU" school. I would have earned well over three times my British salary when I include the perks. Of that over two-thirds would have been tax free."
I bet you didn't get the job. That would explain a lot!
Complain about this comment
oeichler - do you know how to find a reliable stevia producer abroad (China, ..?)
I think this discussion has gone out of hand a little. What was the topic again?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurellius
The limits of Democracy are the same as the limits on ´Free Speech´, of which the mods apparently must constantly remind you.
The American Constitution did not make a color distinction, why do you try under the name of Democracy ?
The tyranny of the majority is just that and no more and can be rightly seen as a ´mental illness´, until it is cured democracy does not exist.
Or are you trying to defend another un-named country ?
Complain about this comment
hofbrauhaus;
I was referring specifically to acorn and only him. Read my subsequent posting #166 for a fuller explanation.
Complain about this comment
169. At 11:24pm on 26 May 2010, margaret howard wrote:
142 EUprisoner wrote:
"I applied to be a teacher in an "EU" school. I would have earned well over three times my British salary when I include the perks. Of that over two-thirds would have been tax free."
I bet you didn't get the job. That would explain a lot!
"lol"
Complain about this comment
noisy little acorn, continue making a fool of yourself if you want to, I will not try to stop you.
Yes, I've been reminded again on this thread that freedom of speech has no more place in British culture than democracy has. The demonstration of that fact has been entirely convincing, no need for you to tell it to me too.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurellius
I don´t know why, but I got the Idea that you and the Brits were discussing Democracy ?
How convenient for them, they decided to get their beauty sleep.
Complain about this comment
Austerity here and there. When are the normal folks gonna see a light at the end of the tunnel. It is really worrying when you look at the world economy. Every country seems to be doing bad.
Complain about this comment
Even if the overblown critizism of the european welfare state would be right, an opinion I do not share, what will the equally or more damaged economies of those states with far lesser welfare do?
I mean, at least, some european countries have something to cut.
If economy would be a propper sience, an opinion I neither share, but if: isn't it then obvious, that the demographic factor hits both kinds of pension systems, the private sector insurance system as well as the mandatory state insurance or tax founded system?
Is it thouht to far, that the pension funds of the states with less public welfare are a main contributor to the global financial crisis?
I mean, if pensions are organized through state, an even elder population means, that a higher percentage of the nations productivity must be taken to finance the pensions. Which is not the biggest problem, as long as the developement of your industry and clever services make it possible, that the productivity grows faster than the people gets older.
Only problem is, the owners of the industries and services do not like to share their profits of automatisation.
The problem of globalisation is, that some countries try to work harder, more effective, develope better products and take a share of that for the national pension system, while others try to sell dubious finance prosducts world-wide to finance the needs of their elders.
As I said, both kind of states have their problems with their ever elder population, but in some states the need for high interests on pension fund has grown to an extend, that is totaly out of proportion in relation to the profit the real, the producing economy can make.
And now, the anglo-saxon ecoomists and media people tell us, that the so called wellfare states have to change their system, in fact because their pension fonds cannot find enough hight interest investments anymore to pay their bill to their pensioners.
That this privat pension fonds need ever bigger interest rates, is the reason, the impulse for all the, I call it criminal, products that are developed every day at Wall Street and London City.
The ability to defend themselves against foreign aggression, justice that takes anybody equally and solidarity in bad times, that are the only significant reasons for people to come together and orgaqnize themselves in nations. In other words, peace, justice and welfare is what we need essentially and what makes the difference between the modern world and the stoneage.
Wether banks, investment companies, stockmarkets, are essential, the is not even worth a question. That are all only tools a society uses more or less to gain the targets. And if we find better tools, we leave the old tools lost in times.
I give a shit what markets need, or want or like, if they want to dominate the world. And I hate people, who cannot make the difference anymore between the "free" in "free market", and the "free" in "free people". One can have free markets that trade slave and one can have free people with regulated markets. Who sets freemarket = free people by his definition is a populist near to a fascist.
Complain about this comment
at least two reports on the PBS Nightly News Hour tonight indicate that the explosion of BP's oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and the ensuing environmental disaster was due pressure to complete the rig faster. Evidently BP was not satisfied that construction was being completed quickly enough. This may be just one more example of a company that only pays lip service to safety, environmental concerns, and industry standards but has a corporate culture which is exactly the opposite. That would be consistent with their safety record being the worst in the oil industry in North America. I have suggested this before and predicted that the consequences for BP in the long term will be far worse than anyone has suggested up to now. And of course when I have stated what I think will happen, my postings have been censored on BBC blogs.
Complain about this comment
On what facts does the blogger build his thesis, that there is an ever bigger welfare state in Europe?
What I experienced, at least in Germany, Benelux, Scandinavia, France and, of course GB, is a shrinking social net at least since the early eighties of the last century.
Complain about this comment
# 176 Sarahhewit
Very true !
May I refer you to my contribution #118 suggesting ´BBC global Business´ ?
It will depress you even more if you listen to it !
Complain about this comment
170. At 11:29pm on 26 May 2010, Gheryando wrote:
oeichler - do you know how to find a reliable stevia producer abroad (China, ..?)
I think this discussion has gone out of hand a little. What was the topic again?
The topic was that we blame the EU for all the miseries in the world, especially if Brussels is not giving us a tax free job...
Regarding stevia... it's coming... for the moment you can get it during your summer trip to France... perhaps EUprisoner should use a French cook book edited by TF1
Complain about this comment
Austerity is sometimes good and necessary.
People will appreciate more the good times in the future
Don't forget to cut the pocket money for the kids, too, so that this rotten spoiled boom generation learns the value of money...
Complain about this comment
EUR/USD(CCY: EURUSD=X)
Last Trade: 1.22
Trade Time: 7:38PM EDT
Change: 0.0005 (0.04%)
Prev Close: 1.2161
Open: 1.2171
Day's Range: 1.22 - 1.22
52wk Range: 1.2145 - 1.5144
Bid: 1.22
Ask: 1.22
The Euro continues to test its recent lows at one point barely above 1.2145 USD. Chartists will watch to see if if falls through that support level. If it does, it's anyone's guess where it will find the next lowest support.
Italy will cut 30 billion USD (25 billion Euro) in across the board government spending cuts in the next two years. For an economy that size, that ain't a hill a beans. Nevertheless, there are general strikes promised. Many are skeptical that they will rise to the levels seen in Greece. We'll see.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10157432.stm
Taxing bank transactions will only drive business to other banks where there is no tax. Not a particularly smart move IMO.
Meanwhile the markets are still very worried about the Euro;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10168820.stm
"After a day that had been mostly positive, New York's benchmark Dow Jones closed down 0.69% at 9974.45 - a four month low.
A fall in the euro against the dollar was one trigger.
That was sparked by a report in the Financial Times newspaper saying China was reviewing its holdings of euro-denominated debt.
It said China was worried about the risk posed to euro-based investments by the weaker countries in the 16-member bloc."
The downward spiral continues and no one knows how to stop it. There doesn't seem to be any plan for a "top kill" or drilling a relief well for this spill. The hole seems just too deep, the whole thing just too far under water.
Complain about this comment
# 177 starofthesouth
Good analogy !
Unfortunately you are correct and many do not see the similarity.
Complain about this comment
#183 MarcusAurellius
My future Maserati is getting cheaper and cheaper.
How many more unemployed Americans is that today ?
You must also know THAT statistic, or do I overestimate your ability to suppress American pain ?
Complain about this comment
noisy little acorn, as you know the "official" unemployment figure for the US is about 10% of the workforce which is probably around 12 million give or take. However, when you add in people who are underemployed, work part time, or are off the radar screen because they've stopped looking for work the real figure is more like twice as many. At least one in eight Americans has gotten some sort of help obtaining food from the government and/or charity. About one quarter of all home mortgages are in trouble. There are so many houses owned by banks now that they don't want them anymore even if the mortgages go into default. Are things bad? You bet they are. And until the government starts printing money like crazy and gets it into circulation even if it's by giving it away one way or another, neither America's nor the world's economy will begin to really recover. The short term risk is not inflation but deflation. The so called recovery has not hit main street. I don't know where the government gets its ideas from but it says that the US economy will grow by 3.7% this year. Employment is what is called a lagging indicator which means that companies will not re-hire people until they are certain that there will be work for them to do and that they must have them. Only then will the employment picture brighten up. If it doesn't arrive by November, there will be a lot of old faces packing up and leaving Washington DC in January and a lot of new ones moving in. In many people's view, the American people are fed up with both major political parties and the prevailing sentiment is to throw out anyone currently in office. Out with the old bums, in with the new. But you know all this already, you are an American yourself...or so you say.
As for the Maserati, I'm not interested. I don't like small cars.
Complain about this comment
@150 quietoaktree
First off, my postings seem to sound more angry than I actually am.
At least I get the impression after reading them. ;)
I said that Germany has no real democracy and that`s what I think. Having said that, I also consider rule of law to be more important.
Why should I settle for anything less than real democracy, just because other nations don`t have it?
The situation right now in Germany and "a few" other European nations is, in my opinion, a combination of a lack of democracy and corrupt and unpatriotic politicians.
I would even take the parliamentary monarchy of the German Empire, which was based on prussian tradition (the king is the first servant of the country) over the charade of these days.
If we have no say anyway, at least we get a more patriotic head of state (someone who wants the nation to prosper), a severe cut in spendings on government and make the state more efficient in terms of political decision making.
Just don`t take away my beloved rule of law
Democracy is a luxury which trades efficiency and flexibility for popular sovereignty. And in my eyes, a democratic government loses its legitimation when the sovereign, the people, gets left out.
This is also why I reject the EU in the way it is installed and run right now (not the idea!). It has no legitimation and no verifiable mandate from the sovereign - the people.
If it really is supposed to be a democracy, that is.
Complain about this comment
@177 starofthesouth
"And now, the anglo-saxon ecoomists and media people tell us, that the so called wellfare states have to change their system, in fact because their pension fonds cannot find enough hight interest investments anymore to pay their bill to their pensioners."
Well of course they do, because those are the people who helped create this whole broken system and the crisis in the first place.
They are the ones who tell the politicians that it`s ok to make debt (as if you need to study economics to know that it`s not), that credit expansion works and that fiat-systems are a good thing.
Plus, not to cut on social-security payments would actually mean that they had to initiate political reforms like restructuring and slimming down the public sector, putting a stop to the subsidization-insanity or the reduction of regulation where it is not needed and regulating where it is due.
Let alone my wet dream that one day my government will come to its senses and return to the gold-standard.
Fat chance. Instead, let us just raise taxes or invent new ones.
Complain about this comment
@186 MAII
"And until the government starts printing money like crazy and gets it into circulation even if it's by giving it away one way or another, neither America's nor the world's economy will begin to really recover."
Did you mean to write "stop"?
Because, otherwise your sentence just contradicts any theory of macro-economics and real world observation.
Complain about this comment
169. At 11:24pm on 26 May 2010, margaret howard wrote:
"... EUprisoner ...
I bet you didn't get the job. That would explain a lot!"
EUpris: No, I didn't. I had a little fantasy. I was going to go to the director and resign and he was going to ask me how much I was going to earn. When I told him, he was going to say "But that's more than I earn." I was going to reply "Yes! But I'm worth it!" Never mind!
As regards: "That would explain a lot." I had already been anti-Common Market/"EEC"/"EC"/"EU" for many years. It doesn't explain anything.
Complain about this comment
170. At 11:29pm on 26 May 2010, Gheryando wrote:
oeichler - do you know how to find a reliable stevia producer abroad (China, ..?)
EUpris: Try www.stevitastevia.com or www.nowfoods.com That's what the book says.
Complain about this comment
181. At 00:40am on 27 May 2010, oeichler wrote:
" ...
Regarding stevia... it's coming... for the moment you can get it during your summer trip to France... perhaps EUprisoner should use a French cook book edited by TF1"
EUpris: I am boycotting France and French goods and the French language because of Sarkozy and his Lisbin Treaty.
Complain about this comment
155. At 10:23pm on 26 May 2010, oeichler wrote:
" ...
While full EU approval for stevia sweeteners is still dependent on a scientific opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), France has taken advantage of window that allows individual member states to approve ingredients for a limited two year period. ..."
EUpris: I just don't want any "European" organisation to have any power to allow or not allow anything in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Drugstoreman;
It may have escaped your notice but in the last three or four years many trillions of dollars have....evaporated into thin air. Gone. This money was in the form of real estate equity, stock equity, other investment instruments, and there were plenty of jobs to go around. All of that is gone now. But we are drowning in material goods. There are millions of empty homes in America, tens of millions of brand new unsold cars, even more perfectly good used cars, endless warehouses of all manner of consumer goods from electronics to textiles all sitting around because not enough people have the money to buy them. As a result of the current lack of money, credit is very tight, debts are going unpaid, businesses are failing, government isn't collecting enough taxes, and most people's personal finances are broken. The leveraging derivitive instruments financial institutions used to multiply their profits in the past have also multiplied their losses to the point where some big ones went broke and many others were on the verge. It's also breaking up marriages, breaking up families, ruining the lives of many millions of Americans.
In the past, when this has happened, the US government printed money and got it into circulation, it almost doesn't matter how as long as it gets into the system. The multiplier effect spreads it quickly throughout the economy the way the bloodstream spreads medicine in the human body. That's how the great depression really ended, by printing money after the war to pay for the war bonds. By lowering tax rates, by stimulating the economy. The stimulus package in this depression so far has not significantly compensated for the amount of equity that disappeared. As a result there is still a net major loss of wealth. Until the money supply catches up with the lost past perceived equity the economy will remain sluggish.
Europe has been able to mask the impact of its real financial situation because its social welfare state and high percentage of goverment employment has disguised its true desperation. The announced cuts haven't really taken effect yet. Europeans know they are coming but this is still an abstraction to them. It won't be for much longer. When the governments can no longer shield most of the population from the hardships that they will face, I predict there will be far more social upheaval than experts have predicted. I think it will get very ugly in Europe.
Complain about this comment
Re: 155. At 10:23pm on 26 May 2010, oeichler
EUpris: Herr Eichler! Since you appear to knows something of these matters please tell me something about Brazil nuts if you know it.
A few years ago at a Tescos in the UK there was a hand written notice which said that they were unable to sell Brazil nuts in shells because of an "EU" law or directive or something.
Since the I have hardly seen any unshelled Brazil nuts in the UK.
Please could you clarify the "EU"s position on Brazil nuts?
I don't want the "EU" making any decisions on Brazil nuts for the UK either.
I don't want the "EU" making any decisions on anything for the people of the UK.
Complain about this comment
" Europe seeks new levy on banks to create crisis funds"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10159631.stm
Dear Aunty BBC,
The "EU" is still not Europe. Please could you stop confusing the "EU" which I hate with the Europe I love.
By so doing you are in danger of doing for the word "Europe" what Hitler did for the word "Germany."
Complain about this comment
DurstigerMann: Would your preference be for a gold euro? Or would you rather restore the mark of 1873?
EUprisoner209456731: This page at the Food Standards Agency should explain the status of unshelled Brazil nuts in the UK. My guess is that Tesco are unwilling (rather than unable) to sell them, as the required testing of every consignment of unshelled Brazil nuts to ensure acceptable levels of aflatoxins would likely increase their retail cost beyond what many customers would be willing to pay for them.
Complain about this comment
#188 DurstigerMann:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't enough actual gold in the world to support going back on the gold standard. And it wouldn't improve things if it were possible to do it.
Complain about this comment
oeichler - thanks but I was looking for a producer to import to Europe.
EUpris - thanks for those links. I will be checking them out. You know, the problem usually is that many producers can do 95% purity but not 99% (or sth like that).
Complain about this comment
194. At 03:06am on 27 May 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
A good post. Although I don't think things will get that 'ugly'.
Because as they start to get 'ugly' the ECB will realise it has to print a shed load of money, and I reckon the BOE will do more of the same thing.
Complain about this comment
"What will all these packages do to growth? Growth is expected to be 0.2% this year and to climb slightly next, but will these cuts reduce demand and so make cutting deficits even harder? There is a risk here."
This is maybe the main question that deserves special attention. I am not a prophet of course, but I think that logically there will be a general reducing of the prices of goods/services. The result should logically increase the demand, boost the economic growth, reduce of the budget deficits, reduce the number of the unemployed, and finally, eliminate the consequences of the recession.
“Will the unions and the public sector workers accept these changes? In the weeks ahead there will be tests on the streets of Lisbon and Madrid.”
This is the second main issue for discussion. The unions and the left wing parties (in opposition) will try to repost. It’s inevitable, not only in Lisbon and Madrid. Even in the South-eastern part of the EU the picture is the same. The unions, backed up by the social democrats and the socialists (now in opposition) are preparing actions against the austerity measures of the governments in Bucharest and Sofia.
I disapprove such actions. It’s not the moment to play the old melody. However it is up to the political classes to implement correctly the idea of cutting the budget deficits. The people of low incomes should not become the scapegoats of the present situation.
Complain about this comment
Markets seem unconvinced, with euro plummeting again.
And China hinting at wanting to get rid of its euro investments.
P.S. I was genuinly sorry to hear that citizens of Stavropol had to pay for Mr.Putins' wars and repressions in the Caucasus.
[I'm afraid it's just a beginning]
Complain about this comment
Actually, Marcus,
You should read (I know, ...you already have read) Barbara Tuchmans book on Medieval Europe..".something something Mirror something something." --lol can't remember the title...of course.
It explains that France (who knew--not Americans?) were the dominant power in Europe for 1000 years and it explains their approach towards "money."
From what I gather from different sources, "captitalism" was really perfected in the UK and Holland, etc..way back "when." And, that is important for this discussion, because,
this means the people on the continent of Europe usually are kind of ...well...ignorant and superstitious about "markets, banks, interest, and such things." Therefore, when I read comments by many here, I take it with the importance it represents.
An earlier poster here said something on the order of "Economics is bull." Well, that is why ALL people who win Nobel prizes in Economics are always from outside/off the "continent."
I could blame France, but that WAS the fashion of those times ...as ursury and money were considered "wicked and (sorry Europe) Jewish derived." The "Church" was the law of the land and Kings, Queens, and others had to pay much attention to IT-the great and glorious Church and its teachings.
Hurray for Martin Luther:)
So, when Marx came along, he was preaching to an adoring crowd (really really really poor people) who couldn't really be blamed for believing his every word.
He actually was a great mind who had studied capitalism and Economics and is still studied today...as a very influential and learned Economics expert. (few exist ...in EUROPE...even today)
So, Europeans, until you have studied "Economics" MUCH MORE EXSTENSIVELY please use another word for that science.....lets call it European Superstition for now, huh...
Quiet Oak Tree, And as for you
you bare me no ill will, I do realize, but
You argued with ...Britain (practically)... on British History and Government while you, yourself, are not British (its unclear to me where you are from and what your credentials are..even remotely) It was most unilluminating and mortifying to read, sorry...stick to topics which are "pc" ...you seem to do better on those type subjects.
David
Complain about this comment
Darn I wasted 1 hour on this place, after work...having to be awake in 12 hours. Blast!
Complain about this comment
Oh and Powermeerkat,
Dont be so dismissive of Russia..they are the only important frontier left in this world,
(for our robber barons to strip mine--a great future "market" of resources):)
Complain about this comment
@198 d_m
"#188 DurstigerMann:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't enough actual gold in the world to support going back on the gold standard. And it wouldn't improve things if it were possible to do it."
Ever since the Bretton Wood agreement of 1943, the reserve currency practically has remained with no coverage - golden or any kind of it. If we (european folks, members of the EU) reallly want to restore the confidence in our single currency, the issue of eventual going back to the gold standard is to be carefully considered.
Complain about this comment
#202 powermeerkat
Hmm, on my screen the euro plummets upwards from 1.22 to 1.23. And the Chinese news titles "Greek crisis not to affect China's overseas investment". Great reporting!
Complain about this comment
David #203
A good read is Max Weber's book "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". You can find it on the Web. Some French "intellectuals" have confided not to understand it... Anyway, after reading that, think of Calvin, who lived in Switzerland.
Complain about this comment
161. At 10:48pm on 26 May 2010, oeichler wrote:
"""156. At 10:25pm on 26 May 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
When did Britain introduce Democracy ?
I only can give a Greek point of view:
NEVER
DHMOKRATIA means democracy AND republic, so it is very hard for Greeks to understand the difference.
BYW, during the Athens Olympic Opening ceremony, the Greek president was announced in the English version as the "President of the Democracy"
They rectified this for the closing ceremony..."""
DHMOKRATIA is of course not a definition of a specific type of governance but rather an umbrella term for those types of governance were people have a direct saying in the matters of the state in the sense that the state leadership either elected or chosen by lottery (in the most extreme democratic form!) they apply only measures that are voted by the majority of people.
Out modern "democracies" are - as correctly stated above - republics. Unfortunately, be it rich, the Greek language has no unique word to make the distinction since even since ancient times the word "democracy" was used for a variety of forms including forms of governance where people only chose their leaders (i.e. more close to our modern democracies). Hence the term latin "Republic", more precise for the description of our modern types of governance, was translated again as democracy. In modern Greek the notion of republic will most often make simple reference to political parties (e.g. the US conservatives). However the exact translation is given with 2 words: i.e. republic = KOINOVOYLEYTIKH DHMOKRATIA (parliamentary democracy) which is opposed to democracy = AMESH DHMOKRATIA (direct democracy). Of course when referering to the title of the state only the word "democracy" is used to describe "republic"... hence PRC = People's Republic of China is translated in Greek as LDK = Laiki Dhmokratia tis Kinas i.e. People's Democracy of China... which might bring a bitter smile to all those who consider it an autoritarian regime. But so should for almost every other democratic regime in the world.
To be correct, in absolute theory (and in an ideal world) a Rebublic could be also an "almost direct democracy" in that case where political parties had developed a very detailed programme after consulting their party members voting directly point after point and line after line, then presenting this to general public in elections not just as a promise but as a contract, i.e. when rising on power being forced to follow step by step the points, if not then fully explain the underlying circumstances forbidding the application - in the case of the contrary then resulting in some short of punishment (i.e. forbidden to be re-elected etc.). In such a system, the voice of the people would be enough heard to be considered a direct democracy, yet I would still keep this term for that type of regime where state leaders are just executioners of things decided by the majority of people.
Mind you, as many people stated here, direct democracy is not esteemed necessarily as ideal since everything depends in the culture of people. Put direct democracy in most countries and it will end up in violence with the majority tribes voting largely in favour of their interests completely ignoring the minority ones whose only hope will be to make a lot of children and increase their numbers etc. Hence, direct democratic forms may function better only in countries with very increased social cohesion which either have only one ethnic element or those where the various ethnic elements are so watered down that they do not really matter. Still even in that case, there might be other more detailed reasons to have people devided eg. people of cities who are the majority vs. people of country side being the minority both with conflicting interests etc. - there you need to have sufficiently educated people who do not vote blindly in favour of their micro-minor little interests but can see the bigger picture.
Mind you... for all its invonveniences, there is nothing better than implicating the people in decision making. If you get the mix of governance right, then you can do miracles though these more of the cultural side and quality of life rather than really economic power, expansionism and enlargment (democracies are complex to develop and run and thus inherently conservative and relatively against any enlargement of scope).
Complain about this comment
#194, MAII wrote:
"I predict there will be far more social upheaval than experts have predicted."
MAII I don't know about the social upheaval but for sure you have just as good a chance (if not better) for your prediction to come right as the "experts" have! One thing is for sure, so far "experts" have got almost everything wrong! So the question is why does anyone even bother to publish their opinions, why don't they just publish "non-experts" opinions? Unless an "experts" opinion can be proven with mathematical accuracy that it will happen as the expert predicts it, it should come with a warning, that it is something that someone dreamt about, nothing to do with reality.
Complain about this comment
207. At 08:53am on 27 May 2010, smroet wrote:
"""#202 powermeerkat
Hmm, on my screen the euro plummets upwards from 1.22 to 1.23. And the Chinese news titles "Greek crisis not to affect China's overseas investment". Great reporting!"""
Chinese with 8% annual growth largely supported by the mass of exports all over the world including EU (second largest partner after the US) would not have any major problem - on the contrary they would not do something that would attack their clients in Europe, they want them there to consume their products.
Mind you, we have already discussed about Chinese offering extra cheap loans to Greece, even at rates cheaper than before the crisis! How about a 6 months loan, for this summer, at 1%? In exchange all had Greeks to do is to lease part of their anyway underworking badly managed ports rid with local pseudo-syndicalist-mafias as per the will of Chinese and not the half-hearted plans of the current government to give limited access that really won't make any difference to either Chinese or Greeks (more of a lose-lose situation).
Of course Jeffrey's government did not even reply and even went to great extend to hide all that behind large titles of "discussions with Chinese on leasing of Greek ports" (i.e. refering to the half-hearted...). Russia called again Greece to get on with the Southstream, Jeffrey whistles from the other side, not responding officially yet, they offer too a complete pay off of loans at 3,5% rates at Greece's convenience (and you know... if Greece cannot pay, no worries, give some port more and its ok!), all Russians ask is some almost unused ports in islands like Thasos or Syros etc and of course to get on with the Southstream.
But what can you expect from Jeffrey? Forget about the Russians and Chinese... most blatant is the offer of UAE to buy the closed ancient airport of Athens at Elliniko (its the place's name, also the airport's) to do guess what: Elliniko airport runaways is just next to the sea. The idea of UAE investors is to buy the ancient airport then transform it to one specialised for lear-jets combines with a marina specialised for yachts. I.e. all the Emirs wish is to park yearly their yachts at Elliniko, then arrive there with their jets and jump on the boats for a nice relaxing trip in the Aegean and Mediterranean. And even more the proposal is followed by anothe proposal: to buy defunct, closed (in the 90s) Greek shipyards specialised on smaller ships, to modernise them and make yachts. Workforce is there, engineering is there all unemployed, ideal situation for the UAE Emirs: you buy the shipyard, make the yacht exactly as you like at lower cost than German and Italian shipyards, then park annually your new yacht in the nearby marina at Elliniko, then arrive with your jet there, jump directly and do a cruise. Sounds too funny? But I am not joking!!! It IS a real proposal! And like or not the Arab Emirs, jealous or not of them, their proposal is ideal. Even if they leave, the investment WILL work since it will attract 1000s of other western European or Chinese (who like very much Greece as a tourist destination actually...) billionaires who love Greece and who will flock to take up the project. An ideal proposal. I cannot rememember how long we discuss in Greece for its inability to attract high profile tourism. Well there you go! BUT Jeffrey rejects it! He prefers the shipyards obsolete or closed, he prefers the Elliniko airport empty and gathering grass and snakes... Go analyse this one!
Complain about this comment
210. At 09:30am on 27 May 2010, ChrisArta wrote:
#194, MAII wrote:
"I predict there will be far more social upheaval than experts have predicted."
MAII obviously underestimates the power of "panem et circus" i.e. Hollywood, Bollywood and the cinema festival of Avignon, day 6, morning presentations of short duration films of experimental cinema from Kazakhstan.
Complain about this comment
#186 MarcusAurellius
Your schadenfreude at the falling Euro has had me questioning whether you know the difference between flag- waving and treason for some time now.
You evasion of the question, suggests not!
Complain about this comment
@Nik,
Some of your post further up regarding growth, population growth & resources and how they all link together is far closer to reality than economists hypothetical money supply and public spending.
If you have the resources everything else is peripheral.
Complain about this comment
#211,
How much of that fact?
Complain about this comment
#187 Durstigermann
Yes, some postings sounded angry and I thought you were complaining from a high level.
If you consider the rule of law alone, Germany far outstrips the USA on many fronts with respect to protections of citizens rights.
In America the ´Bail´ companies have their own lobby and often prevent individuals either from putting up their own Bail or have prevented poor working individuals with families and fixed addresses from getting out prison while awaiting trial for minor offences .
Even judges have upheld the Bail companies arguments ---´Its bad for business, therefore THEIR right to make a living ´
I think this practice is called ´Free Market Freedom ´ ?
Complain about this comment
Yes, interestingly, Nik is great with very extensive history and ideas...
TY, Smroet, I like the French culture, having been to Paris once.. (6 course meals?) and its funny, but its probably Germany that actually gave capitalism its greatest push forward.
I mean, all the world carved up before their rise--they had to have become a rich country without empire, somehow..ok, I'll check it out.:)
Complain about this comment
Re214: Chris, I know I have really enervated people by repeating the same and the same word again and again - gepolitics - and many people might think I am just an idiot that read 1 article in some diplomatic magasine and thinks that knows it all going around reapting emptily a word he does not understand. Well not that I play the specialist. But geopolitics is a single world to describe a very general set of notions implicating politics, economy and defense with geography, geomorphology, ressources etc. Hence, that is why I advice people who keep it too much to strict financial figures (not that I ignore these of course!) to get a map to understand better what is going on. For example, if Thailand, a country in full development and plein financial expansion, has trouble is quite diffucult to understand but if one gets the map and sees how Thailand is next to Birmanie and how Birmanie is under a different regime and different conditions but still has similar political upheaval, then he will just try to find the common point and this is being just next to China. So what does that mean? Well... think of traderoutes and geography. South/Central Chinese production sent to Shangai to to the round by Singapoor and Indonesia (both under notable British & US influence) when it could be not only much more economic but also with less "international control" if China built a railway going down directly to Thailand and from a port there (a part of which leased to Chinese...), they could send their products to the west saving several days of voyage
and plenty of money while getting more control of the traderoute - Thailand and Birmanie of course benefiting by the influx of trade via their lands and all the incoming Chinese investment.
So, to see the full picture, one has to think that way. Money is good. But money is simply trust. To be trustworthy one has to be able with money to yield control. Thus the point is not just having money but finally yielding control. In today's world this means "mattering to the world". US matters, Russia matters, China matters, India matters, Brazil matters, Japan still matters (though still a bigger economy than Indian economy), Germany still matters (though still a bigger economy than Indian economy), France (though still a bigger economy than Indian economy) still matters, Britain still matters (though still a bigger economy than Indian economy) but... Spain hmm does not matter that much really and Spain is a really large country which has a PIB comparable to the much bigger Russia... yes, but Russia is like 50 Spains, has 100 times more ressources as well as of course having the guns. So Russia matters, Spain does not that much. EU however if seen as a unit matters and matters a lot.
Now, to yield control one has to be able to shape his own future. To do so you have to have of course a nice economy. But you need to produce at least something (you cannot have an economy solely based on services, these economies are highly rendering for somet time but inherently fragile short-lived). To produce you need ressources. Either you must have the land with the ressources and the defense to defend them (like US, Russia) or you must have the defense (or should I call offense) to go get those ressources from weaker players (like US, pre-WWII European powers etc.) otherwise all you can do is enter where others permit you (or forgot to check you there) to do so (eg. China enterring commerially in Africa initially in places where the Soviet abandonment left a relative "foreign influence" vacuum but now flirting with all the rest too). Defense won't be only necessary to defend your own lands and ressources as well as buy or extort! the ressources of weaker players but most importantly will have to ensure the control of the traderoutes. If you do all the good work and forget to ensure the traderoutes you do a hole in the water. Yes, the waterways are freeways but at some point at least some of your commerce (either materials or products) will have to pass from Singapoor, Red Sea, Suez, Gibraltar, Manche, Baltic Sea, Aegean, Bosphorus, Panama, Terra del Fuego or the future Northern passage. Brazil can be happy that at least it can trade with Africa without passing from such points, yet it is not mature yet and only recently it begun to talk with African countries like portuguese speaking Angola - yet for most of the world, the bulk of the commerce will indeed pass from there. It is startling that out of these 10 points, 8 are directly or indirectly controlled by either US or Britain (i.e. the angolosaxon block) which is of course evidence of the supremacy of British geopolitics and of the fact that currently it is only the US which has gathered all together the 1) own landmass 2) own ressources 3) defense + offense 4) influence over other countries to get ressources 5) controlling of international traderoutes. Russia has 1,2,3 but has not so much 4,5 further way its own neighbourhood. China similarly. Thus US's supremacy is relatively unquestioned for the time being, hence it can survive having the worst economy in human history, one whose survival cannot be explained without implication of geopolitics.
The key issue for a block of countries aligning their interests like the EU which is 160% bigger in population, 110% bigger in PIB but only 40% of own landmass and 25% of own ressources but which is just sitting next to the world's 80% of ressources (Russia, Middle East, Africa) is to develop a coherent strategy. My view is that now, in the time of this crisis, is the time to do it. And the answer is obvious: develop defense, influence lands with ressources & control traderoutes.
Complain about this comment
Re #205 Dad: Oh and Powermeerkat,
Dont be so dismissive of Russia..they are the only important frontier left in this world.
I'm not. And that's why I'm sure China will secure well its border along Ural Mountains in 20 years time.
Unlike USA its border with Mexico.
Complain about this comment
Re215: The Russian and Chinese proposals are quite well published by non-governmental Greek sources. Anyway the previous government was flirting directly with Russians and Chinese and Greece's heavy loan burden was implicated in the discussions (i.e. Russians and Chinese offering to aid Greece with its loans in exchange of signing projects with them).
The info on UAE proposals comes from a source in the assosiation of Greek shipowners. Of course, one can claim that these are just theoretical proposals of some Emirs known to be currently searching to invest around the world (and already they have invested in Greece under the cover of the UAE funded Marfin Investment Group) thus there can be some incertainty but no... these are recent proposals, and it seems quite real ones. If not, one wonders why on earth the Greek government has not by itself called for international investors to take up the project... just think of a better place in the Mediterranean (I won't say in the world...) to attract yacht tourism. There is nothing more boring than going coast to coast in south France and nothing more exciting than taking your yacht and going from island to island and jumping to Greek mainland coast, to Minor Asian coast, then for the bigger ones down to Egypt or eastwards to Cyprus etc. It is not that I am greek (I live in Greece, it is not as exotic for me as it is for foreign people) but if I had a yacht, that is where I would like to sail it. And rich people love nothing better than luxury: there you have an ancient not really so old airport that it is not even 1 decade that it stopped being the main airport of Athens & Greece... they could come in with their jets, land, then directly jump on their boats in minutes! From there on the first set of wonderful islands are just a couple of hours away.
You will ask me "but why on earth nobody thought of it in Greece"? Eh, I am telling you: it is the governments that do NOT want and freeze any such project!!! Not radically different to why they did not want in the 80s Nissan assembling cars in Greece. Not different to why they did not want Pirelli making tyres in Greece. Not different to why they do not want to lease defunct ports to Chinese or Russians. Go ask them why.
Complain about this comment
#203 David
If I understand you properly, only home grown Nationalists should have the right to comment on their own country ?
I suggest ( with no ill feeling) that some British Subjects are selling you wooden nickels.
Complain about this comment
@194 MAII
"It may have escaped your notice but in the last three or four years many trillions of dollars have....evaporated into thin air. Gone. This money was in the form of real estate equity, stock equity, other investment instruments, and there were plenty of jobs to go around. All of that is gone now. But we are drowning in material goods. There are millions of empty homes in America, tens of millions of brand new unsold cars, even more perfectly good used cars, endless warehouses of all manner of consumer goods from electronics to textiles all sitting around because not enough people have the money to buy them. As a result of the current lack of money, credit is very tight, debts are going unpaid, businesses are failing, government isn't collecting enough taxes, and most people's personal finances are broken. The leveraging derivitive instruments financial institutions used to multiply their profits in the past have also multiplied their losses to the point where some big ones went broke and many others were on the verge. It's also breaking up marriages, breaking up families, ruining the lives of many millions of Americans. "
Those dollars haven`t really evaporated, they had no value in the first place. What you have to understand is that the FED is printing money all the time, thus inflating the currency and keeping the interest rates down.
This is what created the crisis.
People were allowed to buy stuff they couldn`t afford on cheap junk credit.
And your answer to this is to print even more money, so people who cannot afford stuff would get more credit??
There is another thing that increasing the money supply does? It inflates the money, reducing it in value and who does this hit harderst? Those people you want to make buy stuff on cheap credit.
Complain about this comment
@198 d_m
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't enough actual gold in the world to support going back on the gold standard. And it wouldn't improve things if it were possible to do it. "
You would need a financial reform, of course.
And how would it not improve things over a currency backed by nothing but a meager promise?
Complain about this comment
I doubt if the Euro Zone is ready to accept any reduction in ‘handouts’ and the soft option. Today, some French workers (mainly civil servants) are protesting in the hope the retain retirement at 60 ! Their devilish government is proposing to raise the retirement age to 62, or maybe 63. Shock and horror !
So what will Germans think who are expected to work much longer than their so called partners in France ? And what will other European nations think when asked again to support the common agricultural policy and to pump more money into a nation in which people retire earlier and where there exists a 35 hour working week ?
Complain about this comment
Dempster;
"Because as they start to get 'ugly' the ECB will realise it has to print a shed load of money, and I reckon the BOE will do more of the same thing."
It won't help. Not unless the US does it first. For the EU central bank or BOE to print money first would merely deflate their value against the US dollar instantly probably to an even greater degree than is technically warranted by the percentage of dilution they would represent. That is because they would have the additional factor of demonstrating lack of confidence in the country by the banks that issue them. The only thing it would help with is the repayment of internal debt within that currency area but it would kill whatever credit they might get from there on out and would cause interest rates and prices to skyrocket offsetting the benefit. Any transferrable assets would instantly migrate into dollar denominated assets instead. If the US does it first, there is really nowhere else to go and the impact to the US economy although temporarily bad wouldn't be as drastic. Then it would be safe for the UE bankd and BOE to do the same. But that won't happen. The Obama administration will fight to prevent currency dilution for as long as it can hold out. That's what the ream meaning of keeping interests rates low means. It's a signal that the solvency of the banks still takes precedence over the recovery of the economy.
Complain about this comment
Drugstore Man;
"Those dollars haven`t really evaporated, they had no value in the first place."
That's not true. Banks were eager to make loans against the equity that existed which could be used for any kind of purchase. So long as the economy appeared healthy and the housing bubble hadn't collapsed, the banks felt these loans were secured by the collateral of the equity in the houses themselves. That's part of what's gone but even worse is the multiplication of the loss through the leverage of the derivatives. That turned a 2 to 5 trillion dollar fiasco into potentially a 50 trillion dollar fiasco. This is why the collapse of AIG would have triggered a worldwide depression and why the US government poured nearly 200 billion dollars of taxpayer money into one company.
Complain about this comment
215. At 10:05am on 27 May 2010, ChrisArta wrote:
#211,
How much of that fact?
-----
I have heard that too, and as Nik says, even if it is not backed up by official announcements, it is something that the government should be chasing after, especially now that such foreign investments are a must.
Jeffrey has made some moves towards the Arab world and the Chinese, but he could do so much more.
Complain about this comment
"The difference between pro europeans and eurosceptics is that a pro-european has no problem in getting into a political union with another europeans, and accepts the possibility of another european having political power over his affairs. Eurosceptics on the other hand will never accept political union with 'foreigners' because they view them as inferior or distrustfull, and goes into a rabid fury at the mere thought of a(insert random european nationality i.e swiss)having any power over his affairs"
Discuss.
Complain about this comment
Nik for president! :)
I believe that you are very well prepared and know what you are talking about, but in a world like this, where only "quick money" matters, talking about long term strategy is like talking about rocket science to monkeys. And besides that, there is another problem: people in most EU countries still live in the past, when their countries mattered, when they had weight in the world. It takes them a long-long time to realise that to have any weight these days, they must unite (some of them are still trying to play the "big boy", which I believe, makes them quite ridiculous).
Anyway, if we can ever vote for the president of the EU, you will have my vote! :)
Complain about this comment
225. At 12:48pm on 27 May 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Dempster;
"Because as they start to get 'ugly' the ECB will realise it has to print a shed load of money, and I reckon the BOE will do more of the same thing."
It won't help. Not unless the US does it first. For the EU central bank or BOE to print money first would merely deflate their value against the US dollar instantly
The BOE already has printed money, and it became clear it was going to have to in Autumn 2008. And it did in 2009, £200 billion if memory serves.
In addition I reckon there's more money printing to come from the BOE and the ECB if it hasn't already started will be starting very soon.
As regards the US, I don't know, but I'd be surprised if they don't to.
Complain about this comment
#230,
you are right, it is the only out of this. The only people that fear inflation are people will money. There are only two ways out the hole the financial markets put us all. One higher taxes to the super rich, but they don't like that, or two reduce their wealth through inflation. No matter what textbooks or free market advocates say, the simple fact is that a super rich person can only eat three or four meals a day and generate the required economic activity around those meals. 100 people even if they eat only twice a day each they will generate far great amounts of the economic activity needed to generate those meal. So the bottom line is wealth needs to be spread, not concentated.
Complain about this comment
@227 MAII
"This is why the collapse of AIG would have triggered a worldwide depression and why the US government poured nearly 200 billion dollars of taxpayer money into one company. "
AIG should have gone bankrupt.
The bailouts as a whole are a violation of market rules.
It doesn`t even matter if and how those institutions pay back. There were no lessons learned and the same people who created this mess are in charge.
In a real market economy, people who mismanage would go bankrupt and vanish from the market.
Complain about this comment
#224. At 11:48am on 27 May 2010, frenchtommy
I simply don't care what the German worker think that they have to retire at 65 and the French retire at 60! If the German workers don't like retiring at 65, they should demonstrate like the French workers to retire at 60 also, instead of wanting the French workers to retire later.
I don't see the German politicians, economists, bankers or industrialists wanting to accept the same wages and working conditions as their partners in Latvia, Lithuania or Bulgaria! How come German workers have to adjust their retirement and pay conditions to east european levels but bankers, analysts, politicians are exempt?
Complain about this comment
@197 Jan_keeskop
"DurstigerMann: Would your preference be for a gold euro? Or would you rather restore the mark of 1873?"
It depends.
The monetary union in its current composition could not handle a common gold standard.
It would even aggravate the problems.
For a common currency, I`d prefer only the benelux nations and Austria right now.
French European politics are, in my opinion, only/mostly revolving around French interests, so I`d rather leave them outside.
As for GB, I`m not really sure, but they prolly wouldn`t want to join such a union anyway.
If every nation goes back to its own currency, I wouldn`t mind that either. It doesn`t destroy other great aspects of the EEC.
Complain about this comment
#218
@Nik
"My view is that now, in the time of this crisis, is the time to do it. And the answer is obvious: develop defense, influence lands with ressources & control traderoutes."
Yes, EU policians can try do the above, but because it is quite hard to achieve they could instead delay taking any decisions because they have a regional election in a state in Germany that no one other than the Germans has heard of!! ha ha :))
Complain about this comment
@206 generalissimo
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't enough actual gold in the world to support going back on the gold standard. And it wouldn't improve things if it were possible to do it."
Ever since the Bretton Wood agreement of 1943, the reserve currency practically has remained with no coverage - golden or any kind of it. If we (european folks, members of the EU) reallly want to restore the confidence in our single currency, the issue of eventual going back to the gold standard is to be carefully considered. "
If you just convert the dollar (e.g.) of today, there might not be enough gold. But the key thing would be to bind the dollar or euro to a price-range in gold.
This would need a monetary reform, of course.
A gold standard is nothing but the promise that the money in your hands is convertable to real gold at the given value.
That means you cannot inflate a currency into oblivion.
That there is not enough gold or silver on this planet is no argument for me. I am not talking about Zimbabwe or other such nations, but nations like the USA, France, GB and Germany. All those nations have high gold reserves.
Complain about this comment
#234. At 1:41pm on 27 May 2010, DurstigerMann
You are right the UK wouldn't care about joining such a union. Further more neither would the benelux, perhaps only Austria would be interested but I doubt it.
The benelux would never go into any form of union with Germany on their own without other EU nations in it.
The problem you are facing is you don't realised how much the Euro benefited Germany more than any other nation. Also you don't realise that the Euro is a FrancoGerman idea to enable their companies to trade within the EU without currency exchange risks. Having said all that I still wish that we here in the UK join also, but we have far more shortshighted people here in the UK than you have in Germany.
Complain about this comment
Yo David, you wrote
"Don't be so dismissive of Russia..they are the only important frontier left in this world,
(for our robber barons to strip mine--a great future "market" of resources):)"
Don't be silly. Russia has some of the best robber barons in the world. They needed a little help getting started but as Darth would say, "the student has become the master". Look at the Russian mafia. It's like America during prohibition.
Complain about this comment
@226 MAII
"That's not true. Banks were eager to make loans against the equity that existed which could be used for any kind of purchase. So long as the economy appeared healthy and the housing bubble hadn't collapsed, the banks felt these loans were secured by the collateral of the equity in the houses themselves."
Well, at this point in time, we should be as far as to realize that they were dead wrong.
Look at the real estate prices for example.
Complain about this comment
@220 Nik
Hi, friend & neighbor. The careful reading of the comments here just confirms my previous doubts about the different ways we all are considering the consequences of the recession.
As a matter of fact, in my country the austerity plan has been functioning ever since 1997, i.e. since the installation of a special monetary and fiscal regime the IMF had imposed to Sofia. The exchange of the national currency against the Euro is being made at fixed rate of Euro 1 = 1.95583 BGN. The exchange with the reserve currency (US$) and the other strong currencies is based on their fluctuant exchange rates to the Euro. As a matter of fact all our monetary/fiscal policy depends on the health of the single currency (the Euro). The exchange is not limited, but a preservation of some currency reserve is compulsory. No credits are landed to the government and the monetary policy is very limited (to the very needs of physical persons, companies and banks). If we add to that the fact that there are no restriction for the international trade and capital transfers, you can imagine, how difficult is the situation here for the local entrepreneurship, and how privileged are the foreign investors. The results, so far, are encouraging. We started working like poor devils. We have no choice Nik.
Sofia, May 27th 2010
P.S. I wonder where Alice of St.Petersburg is
Complain about this comment
@228 phoenix
""The difference between pro europeans and eurosceptics is that a pro-european has no problem in getting into a political union with another europeans, and accepts the possibility of another european having political power over his affairs. Eurosceptics on the other hand will never accept political union with 'foreigners' because they view them as inferior or distrustfull, and goes into a rabid fury at the mere thought of a(insert random european nationality i.e swiss)having any power over his affairs"
Discuss."
You are basically suggesting that someone who prefers national sovereignty is a racist or at least xenophobic.
From what I gathered, most eurosceptics rather distrust the bureaucratic monstrosity in Brussels, which does have no democratic legitimation.
Complain about this comment
#228 Phoenix
You forgot ´Blind Nationalism´
There are two sorts of Eurosceptics, one honestly sees his country as offering more to its citizens and the other sort who hope the first is correct.
More than often the first can´t prove his point and the second takes to the barricades to show how weak-bellied the first is.
Complain about this comment
Phoenix (228): You raise a key question, all be it using pejorative language towards the EU-sceptic side. Let me ask you what benefit there is for one nation to have political control over the laws that another nation lives under? Is it not better that each nation should choose the laws it lives under for itself and accept that other nations should also have the same right. If this is not allowed then it means some nations must live under laws they disagree with but cannot change, which is surely undesirable.
I think a case can be made for international law that prevents one nation from harming the interests of another, or a government turning the power of the state against its own people. But this can be achieved through the mechanisms of classical intergovernmental co-operation, including international treaties like the European Convention on Human Rights. But the EU is going way beyond that with its type of international law (supranational law) decided by QMV (and therefore impsed on dissenting nations), which only ever grows in scope, and which pre-empts national law and therefore is actually progressively replacing national law and reducing the democratic institutions of our nation-states towards impotence.
It is the destination that supra-nationalism leads to which EU-sceptics like myself find intolerable, and that has nothing to do with xenophobia which you are hinting at. Indeed i believe that other European nations deserve representative government as much as i do, and that they should object to the hollowing out of their democracies, as much as i do mine. I believe that since i do not live in their country, i should not care what law they live under, which should solely be determined through their elections and not mine. EU-sceptics in truth therefore actually respect other nations more than the so-called pro-Europeans who would disenfranchise us all.
Complain about this comment
234. At 1:41pm on 27 May 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
" ...
If every nation goes back to its own currency, I wouldn`t mind that either. It doesn`t destroy other great aspects of the EEC. "
EUpris: There are no great aspects to the "EEC"/"EC"/"EU".
It is Grade A rubbish.
Complain about this comment
@237 ChrisArta
"The benelux would never go into any form of union with Germany on their own without other EU nations in it.
The problem you are facing is you don't realised how much the Euro benefited Germany more than any other nation. Also you don't realise that the Euro is a FrancoGerman idea to enable their companies to trade within the EU without currency exchange risks. Having said all that I still wish that we here in the UK join also, but we have far more shortshighted people here in the UK than you have in Germany."
Would you mind elaborating on how the Euro in itself exactly benefited Germany?
All this "the Euro benefited Germany so much" talk tires me, because it always comes up to force upon "more integration".
Where has Germany benefited? The normal citizens certainly have not.
I`d even go as far as to say that within the last 10-15 years, mostly under the Euro, there has been a very unhealthy development towards more export and the domestic market shrunk to an unhealthy degree.
It is true that the Euro and the EU was a FrancoGerman idea. Between politicians, not the people. And the way it is now, many Germans feel like they are the paymasters and France is the leader.
And you are probably correct about the benelux nations and Austria.
They would fear that German politics dominate them.
Complain about this comment
phoenix wrote:
""The difference between pro europeans and eurosceptics is that a pro-european has no problem in getting into a political union with another europeans, and accepts the possibility of another european having political power over his affairs. Eurosceptics on the other hand will never accept political union with 'foreigners' because they view them as inferior or distrustfull, and goes into a rabid fury at the mere thought of a(insert random european nationality i.e swiss)having any power over his affairs"
Discuss."
OK, I'll bite. I'll "discuss".
Firstly, you are stepping dangerously close to the idiot cliff. Switzerland isn't even in the EU.
Not only is Switzerland not in the EU, Switzerland has lower taxes than the EU AND a much, much higher standard of living. Not only that, but Switzerland has incredible public infrastructure, the envy of any European state. With low taxes, mind you.
Not only that, but Switzerland is based upon local government: the federation of Swiss cantons is in some ways weaker in law than the federation of EU states. Switzerland's system is based upon the devolution and DECENTRALIZATION of power.
Furthermore, Switzerland has, and always has had, lower unemployment than ANYBODY in the Eurozone. Again, this is the result of the decentralization of power. Instead of promoting large institutions that gather more and more power to themselves, Switzerland prevents such corporate bodies creating vast waste and institutionalized corruption.
Most crucially, those who sponsor the party do not rule here. You can sponsor political careers all you like, and some rich Swiss do, but in the end the people can vote down laws they do not like, and which fleece them of their money.
Now, let me repeat some facts for you:
1. Lower taxes than anywhere in Europe. I pay 15%, flat rate.
2. Better quality and better maintained infrastructure than anywhere in Europe, with more natural obstacles than anywhere (the alps). If you can find me a Swiss train that is not spotlessly clean and on time, I'll eat my alphorn.
3. Higher quality of living, especially in the cities. Zurich and Geneva have won global "best city to live in" awards for the past decade or more. These awards take into account not only wages, but also public services, such as education, health care (universal) and environmental quality of life.
4. More participation in politics for citizens. The citizens have real democracy. If they are expected to obey a law, they had the chance to vote on it with everyone else. If a p[arty member wants a law, the people must also say yes. REAL democracy. Not elite party based systems of representation where nobody has any say in who the party puts forward for safe seats and proportional certainty positions.
5. Almost zero crime.
6. Neutrality and an absence of war for glory and the profit of warmongers. Nevertheless, half wits will claim Switzerland is based on blood money.
7. A political system that is fundamentally based upon a federation of DECENTRALIZED members. Both the cantons and the local villages make their own laws. The efficiency of the large monopoly does not impress the swiss. They want efficiency of public life, so that government does not get power crazy and start sending them broke by spending money it does not have. And that requires decentralization of power, and direct democracy to stop the corporate sponsorship of law and budgeting.
Frankly phoenix, you don't know anything about Switzerland, and you don't know anything about the EU either.
The EU is a second world nation compared to Switzerland. By any standard that is true. Any standard at all.
I pay 15% tax, everyone has jobs that are very highly paid, and there is universal health care and the spotless trains run on time, every time. There is no crime that I have seen. i leave my doors unlocked all the time.
I pay tax to my local village government, to my canton, and to the federal government. All are separate bills, and they total 15% of my income. My compulsory health insurance is around 50 euros a month.
I am incredibly grateful that my local townsfolk vote on policy and law in our village. It is a comfort to know they are keeping an eye on those mortals who are drawn to the public funds by greed and a lust for power.
Complain about this comment
150. At 9:44pm on 26 May 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"I think Marx explained the problem after visiting England ?"
His 'visit' to England lasted 34 years from 1849 until his death in 1883(he is buried in Highgate Cemetary). More than a fleeting visit I think but he was free to express exactly his views. Not bad for a fuedal class ridden society.
Complain about this comment
244. At 2:47pm on 27 May 2010, EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
234. At 1:41pm on 27 May 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
" ...If every nation goes back to its own currency, I wouldn`t mind that either. It doesn`t destroy other great aspects of the EEC. "
EUpris: There are no great aspects to the "EEC"/"EC"/"EU".
It is Grade A rubbish.""""
Hmmmm.... imagine:
First case:
A production unit in Austria produces high quality finished products it sells to Middle East among others. It imports steel, it imports some machinery (other is local) and it uses gas for its generators and buys electricity produced by gas (internal cheap), coal (internal cheap), oil (internal expensive) or nuclear (imported). Its products are shipped by railway and nearby ports. To ensure ressources it might buy steel from Germany and Ukraine (cheaper one), it might buy gas from Russia by pipeline and Saoudi in liquidied form and to move its finished products it will use railway and nearby ports. In reality Austria is simply condamned. It will have to deal with a very complex network of countries and localised interests and its cost-effectiveness is not at all assured. + none will ever want to invest in the country prefering countries with fewer such risks. Austria will eventually have to either make war and have acess to the sea or to make strategic agreements with neighbouring countries for the ease of commercial flow. Most probably it will stick to closing its borders to foreign commercial flow to have any hopes of intetrnal production surviving.
Second case:
Greece. Ministry of energy. Greek ministry of energy decides bilaterally with Bulgaria to bring in Russian gas and then sell to Italy without any other consideration. Pipeline is so big that is actually designed to export to more than half of Europe. Suddenly all long term energy projects of Germany not taking into account that possibility for more than 15 years are laid to waste and its economy irreparably hit, thus Germany pre-emtively moves and attacks all central Balkans first via une local collaboration with Albanian Kosovar guerillas who prepare the ground.
Third case:
Italian investors decide to make a huge port in south Italy then construct a dense railway in conjunction with Austria so as to deflect ALL (when I say ALL I mean ALL) commerce coming from East Asia to central Europe. ALL northern ports like Rotterdam and Humburg shrink at 70% of their size, able to serve only the US-northern/central European flow of products. Germans, Dutch, French act preemptively and attack Italy and Austria.
Well... I guess NOT everything is wrong about the EEC, EU etc.
Complain about this comment
243
"Let me ask you what benefit there is for one nation to have political control over the laws that another nation lives under?"
But the EU is not a 'nation'. It is composed of a number of nationalities with none of them in principle being superior to another. The benefit is that it reinforces the indivisibility of mankind and the efficacy of ruuning things at the appropriate level when they abide by the same principles.
"But this can be achieved through the mechanisms of classical intergovernmental co-operation, including international treaties like the European Convention on Human Rights."
Granted, but it needs an instititution to promote integrate and futher these values. Its like having a constitution for a country but no organism to make it work.And individuals and nations being waht they are will accept the constitution only when it futhers their own selfis ends Nation states are by their nature selfish organisations who work for their own good at the expense of others. Problem is that that envisions a situation whereby all nation states fight for a larger slice of the cake (and we have had more than enough of that in Europe in the last 1000 years), rather than working toghether and making the cake bigger. Now you may still elbow your way to a bigger slice of the cake(looking at france), but even the least member has a bigger slice than when he would have just worked in his own interest.
Complain about this comment
I've said it before, but I will say it again because this thread is screaming out for the distinction to be made.
Democracy is where the people, the "demos", vote on laws. Not where they turn up and vote for people.
Systems of representation, where laws are made exclusively by representatives, are NOT democracy.
They are systems of representation. Just because those who sponsor and control the system of representation offer a vote to the people, this does not make the system democratic. If it did, the soviet union could have been described as perfectly democratic. There were elections in the soviet union. Lots of them. Yes, they were a farce and meaningless because it didn't matter who you voted for. All the candidates were carefully handpicked to suit those who controlled the system of representation.
But exactly the same can be said for the UK, the USA and the westminster system generally (ie germany et al).
It is not a "conspiracy theory" to point out that the system of representation under the westminster system is controlled by an elite. That is simple historical comprehension.
Read the origins of the parliamentary system. The English revolution and civil war which lead to the establishment of the westminster system was not a battle to allow commoners to vote on their laws. It was specifically a battle between the traditional nobility and the rising class of very wealthy merchants. In short, it was a revolution to allow everybody with great wealth to be allowed to vote on laws, instead of reserving that right for those with noble bloodlines. Which had been the case prior to the westminster system.
So understand what representation is, and where it comes from. It never was intended to give political emancipation to the common folk. It was only a change from historic bloodline giving a person control over law to vast wealth giving a person control over the legislative process.
That isn't a conspiracy. It's the history. And it is also history to note that no revolution of political emancipation has occurred since. The tradition continues.
Most of you people on this blog should spend some time reading about the origins of words you already know quite well. The etymology is enlightening, as it often is.
The "whigs" were supporters of the traditional aristocracy, the land owning gentry. They were named by their opposition, who derived the term from "whiggamores", which was the Scottish term for a lowly cattle drover. Note the social connotation of the derogatory name. In is inescapable: you lot are no better than common working people. It was a grave insult, in parliamentary circles.
Not to be outdone, the whigs gave their opposition an equally derogatory and hurtful nickname: the "Torries". this words come from the irish "torai", meaning a man pursued, or an outlaw. Again, the best way to insult your opponent was to question his social class and legitimacy to rule.
Some excellent work has been done by American academics on the way parliamentary representation has evolved since those days of infighting between the landed gentry and the merely rich.
Curiously, the modern distinction between "conservatives" and "labour", or between "democrat" and republican" still shows the same division of industries as it always has.
Those who employ many people, those who own factories and who lease militia to the government, these owners have very large labour costs in their business models. Now these tend to be the conservatives. On the other side of the house you have those owners who run industries which are not so labour intensive. So you have owners of law firms, doctors associations, bankers, farmers and so forth. This group of owners is far more willing to appeal to the mass of the population for support, because the bottom line is that it does not cost them so much to promise a little to the masses. These are your traditional "radicals", the urban upstarts.
And even now this is the case, if you have a look and which industries sponsor which parties in the US, the UK and elsewhere. The owners who have large labour costs to make their profits lobby for control of those costs, and the owners who do not have such labour costs promote some benefit for the masses in return for control over the taxation system and the revenue of the state.
But I will leave you all with one final thought, regarding systems of representation.
There has never been a system of representation that has not devolved into a controlled system, run from the shadows by party sponsors. Why do you think that is?
I'd submit it is for the very simple and banal fact that it takes money to go around promoting yourself as a candidate. No matter how good your intentions or your ideas, if you work for a living and have no money to speak beyond your local community of a few tens or perhaps hundreds of people, there is a finite and remarkably small number of people a person can reach in five years by speaking with each individually.
Talking to thousands of people in the very short space of an election campaign, let alone tens of thousands or millions, or tens of millions, costs a truly vast sum of money. It isn't a conspiracy, nobody is planning a system where only the rich can play. Only the rich can play because it costs a lot of money. The politics of representation are like the sport of polo, the sport of kings. You have to be a king to be able to house and feed and groom and transport horses about the country for amusement. Otherwise you go broke. Normal people go for a walk, or play footy in the park for their recreational amusement.
And that is how representation works. It is a fundamentally expensive sport. If you have a system of representation, no matter how you police it with rules and funding regulation, sooner or later it must fall under the sway of those who have money to promote a cause.
Most telling, with regard this theory of why representation fails, is the story of Lenin, the pamphleteer who lived in Switzerland as "Hereditary Nobleman Ulyanov" for several years before being put on a train to go back to fragmenting Russia in order to establish a government which would enrich its creditors.
The communist party always borrowed money and paid interest by taxing people, and it always held elections to justify its system of representation. Yet despite the rhetoric and marxism and the insane fever, the bolsheviks always paid their interest and their debts to the international financiers.
Lenin did not buy his own ticket back to Russia from Zurich. We know, because when we read his letters to Stalin from this period, we learn that Stalin was running Lenin's radical newspaper business for him whilst he was in exile, and keeping the money for himself. Lenin is always asking for money and business reports, and Stalin is always brushing him off with stories about plans gone wrong, and money lost due to bad luck and the enemy actions.
So let us stick with definitions that are consistent with history and common sense etymology, and then we can all understand each other.
Representation is where the population vote for representatives to make their laws. The representatives need to reach vast numbers of people in a very short space of time, and that takes huge funding. Say no more about evil intentions.
Democracy is where the population vote on their own laws. Laws are not made by people who need to reach vast numbers of people in a short space of time. Laws are made by the people, by direct vote.
Whether you like it not, these definitions actually mean something and are consistent within themselves.
If you live under democracy, then you live under democracy. If you live under representation, you live under representation. Even if you want to believe that you live under democracy, please stop for a moment and think about all the good people in the East German Democratic Republik who wanted the same thing. And all the people in the People Democratic Republik of North Korea. Or the vast millions in the former democratic union of soviet states. Or the millions in the democratic republic of the congo.
All these places had vast numbers of people who live or who lived under systems that are mere representation, and yet all of them wanted to believe they lived under democracy. Hence the official names of the states.
So ask yourself, are you a good patriot and party member who believes something that is not true?
Nobody in the English speaking world lives under democracy, and nor does anyone who has lost a war to them either. The same can be said for the Russian speaking world.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II wrote:
"150. At 9:44pm on 26 May 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"I think Marx explained the problem after visiting England ?"
His 'visit' to England lasted 34 years from 1849 until his death in 1883(he is buried in Highgate Cemetary). More than a fleeting visit I think but he was free to express exactly his views. Not bad for a fuedal class ridden society."
Noisy acorn does fail to impress with its general knowledge, but we are nonetheless blessed by its loud and patronizing comments delivered from a great height.
But on the subject of Marx in the UK, he was following the path of every party leader and every sincere socialist.
He was making his career by hanging around his sponsors, exceedingly wealthy men. Engels, anyone? The great industrialist cum communist who owned factories and who published marx and who gave him money to rant and rave, and to fund the party machine?
Marx came from a family of professional demagogue preachers in service to the uber wealthy and he did not land too far from the tree.
Complain about this comment
240. At 2:14pm on 27 May 2010, generalissimo wrote:
"""@220 Nik
Hi, friend & neighbor. The careful reading of the comments here just confirms my previous doubts about the different ways we all are considering the consequences of the recession. As a matter of fact, in my country the austerity plan has been functioning ever since 1997...
... If we add to that the fact that there are no restriction for the international trade and capital transfers, you can imagine, how difficult is the situation here for the local entrepreneurship, and how privileged are the foreign investors. The results, so far, are encouraging. We started working like poor devils. We have no choice Nik.""""
Hmmm... yes when foreign investors are privileged they flock around. When they flock around they bring money and at least some of it will move around the local market of employment according to the type of industries where investments fall. However, when the local businessman is penalised, not just by a relatively healthy competition of a bigger, more experienced foreign competitor but law, then there is a long term danger no matter if at short term it bring results. This can be mitigated if the type of foreign investments fall into sectors which may have the tools to continue after the investors's divestment (e.g. if an investor builts a port when he leaves the port behind it will remain in sufficient shape to function but if he just buys shares in local companies dragging other local investors invest there then leaving with the increased value letting them gather the pieces, that is not so helpful... - we had that back in 1999 in Greece). Beware also of plasmatic numbers. Greece's economy was supposedly developing and unemployment was rising and wages were in most cases stagnant or falling in terms of market prices.
My understanding is that for the time being NO Black sea nation will be ok. Ukraine will do a bit better with Russia and Turkey with the usual US cover, albeit the latter will be passing some serious political upheaval but US, which is secretly 100% ok with its re-islamisation as an answer to the games in the region, will back it up where it wants. Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia will be closely monitored by all US, Russia and EU in a game from the US part and half-heartedly of EU that follows like a pet, of not permitting Russia to remake the Black Sea its own playground. Fortunes of Bulgaria and Romania will change only if EU decides to move on to a closer commercial relationship with Russia but so far the signs remain mixed and overall relatively negative.
I really do not wish to play the Cassandra and bring bad omens but that is my understanding from what I see up to know. Hope though that Bulgaria does better, it will affect us too as Greece and Bulgaria are not competitors but complementary partners.
Complain about this comment
#246 - democracythreat
I am getting quite worried. What happened to the virtual shouting matches we used to have?
I entirely agree with what you say and have long advocated devolved power and decentralisation within the EU. There does remain the question of scale nd this involves breaking some of the larger units up into their component parts. In some parts, this is beginning to emerge as a natural progression - the break up of Czechoslovakia for instance. In the UK, I think it is only a matter of time, the new government committed to looking at the same devolved powers for Wales as currently apply in Scotland. It is only a matter of time in my view before the United Kingdom becomes the Federal Kingdom. Spain's system allows considerable autonomy to the regions already. On the other hand France remains highly centralised and there are mixed signals from Germany with the federal system ostensibly giving widespread autonomy but reunification seemingly running contrary to the trend.
The biggest single obstacle in the centralising tendency of the EU itself. 'One size fits all' economic and fiscal policy has already been shown to be something of a sham. A similar approach to social policy, law and so on would be a recipe for discontent. The European ideal of people living together in a peaceful and reasonably contented way is not well served by failing to give voice to local and regional aspirations.
Conformity does not sit well with people who should celebrate their diversity rather than surpress it.
Complain about this comment
#242
"There are two sorts of Eurosceptics, one honestly sees his country as offering more to its citizens and the other sort who hope the first is correct.
More than often the first can´t prove his point and the second takes to the barricades to show how weak-bellied the first is."
yeah if you say so
Complain about this comment
#248 - Nik
I think you have finally lost the plot altogether.
Austria to make war to secure a seaport? Greece to subvert EU energy supplies? Italy to grab all the seagoing traffic at a stroke?
Wonderful sense of humour Nik - at least I hope so because, if you are even half serious, you are in urgent need of help.
Complain about this comment
Yes Quiet Oak Tree,
Its just we are both, I think, Americans. And I get nervous when Americans here comment (there are only a few here) and I don't like upsetting people. I have a neurotic need to be "liked by (mostly)everyone." ie, Marcus doesn't have that neurosis lol:)
MaudDib,
you are likely right. Putin is not my hero, but I do think... blah blah.
Dunstinger Mann,
Your posts are more revealing these days (I'm THE judge?--AS IF) But, I have enjoyed them....It is true that Germany's constitution is imposed, huh. Can you guys impose a new better one onto us(A)? Please? Tho, our bill of rights I like alot.
Did you know that when the 200th anniversary of our constitution came around (1987? or some yr) only few Americans noticed (maybe scholars)???
Complain about this comment
I was very scared about the "gulf oil spill crisis." (I still am and think its America's biggest threat at the moment) And I read that BP may have finally stopped (slowed) the oil spewing out.
I hope, I hope, I hope....
Poor Louisiana, and their coast, first Katrina...now this.
DemocracyThreat,
I worked in a school (junior college) library for years and years (wheee) and while there we had many dictionaries. The most huge dictionary there was "The Oxford Dictionary." My point, and I do have one, is this dictionary had the origins of words (etymology) in IT (why it was so huge.)
But, while noticing that, I didn't spend much time looking at it. (work)
Also, there is a "history of the English language" documentary that is great--narrated by that Canadian broadcaster from ABC network (he died recently..can't remember his name lol) But, its soo good. "C'est si bon."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
d_t
There is iron in your words today.
Complain about this comment
#248
No one could ever accuse you of lack of imagination Nik.
Complain about this comment
#206. At 08:53am on 27 May 2010, generalissimo wrote:
@198 d_m
"#188 DurstigerMann:
"Ever since the Bretton Wood agreement of 1943, the reserve currency practically has remained with no coverage - golden or any kind of it. If we (european folks, members of the EU) reallly want to restore the confidence in our single currency, the issue of eventual going back to the gold standard is to be carefully considered. "
---
Up until 1971, dollars could be redeemed for gold. It ended in 1971 because it was no longer working. That’s when President Nixon took the US off the gold standard.
How could you implement a gold standard today? (Certainly not unilaterally.) It require the cooperation and agreement of the countries you trade with? How would you get that cooperation and agreement? How could you rely on it even if you could get it?
After WWII, it required the agreement of only a few nations because only a few nations mattered enough. Everyone else just had to go along. Impelmenting a gold standard today would be fraught with almost insurmountable problems. So it seems to me anyway.
223. At 11:39am on 27 May 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
"You would need a financial reform, of course. And how would it not improve things over a currency backed by nothing but a meager promise?"
---
I believe there are too many opportunities for others to manipulate it to there advantage. And there would be nothing you could do to stop them. For example, gold has a free market price and you can’t control it. Or, other countries could devalue their currency relative to yours and thereby gain significant trade advantages.
Complain about this comment
@253 threnodio_II
"On the other hand France remains highly centralised and there are mixed signals from Germany with the federal system ostensibly giving widespread autonomy but reunification seemingly running contrary to the trend."
Any system has its shortcomings.
The federal systems in Germany and Austria for example run far too many states for the countries` sizes.
The trend in both nations, contrary to what you write, is a reduction of states and federalism as a whole. More and more people see this as a necessity.
The way I personally see it, nations of the size of GB, Germany, France, etc can benefit from federalism, if the number of states is not too high and it is implemented on principles of grass roots democracy with voters being able to directly participate on the level of their communes and respective states.
The Federal Council would have to consist of directly elected members in order to break up the rule of political parties the way you can see it in Germany and Austria right now.
The way we got it right now, you only get like 16 mini-governments and a big government on top of it and the people are reduced to casting their votes every few years.
In essence, if GB becomes a federal state, you would need political reforms. If they just implement it the way your government works right now, just smaller, it does nothing but cost taxes.
Complain about this comment
259. At 6:52pm on 27 May 2010, MaudDib wrote:
d_t
There is iron in your words today.
-----
I get the impression you like westerns as well as science-fiction.
Complain about this comment
Re #248
Despite promising myself, trying to avert my eyes & still my keyboard finger-itch I just had to write something on these grandiose scenarios-of-all-scenarios:
'First case' - - so plausible, a wonder it has not already happened!
'Second case' - - so likely, there isn't a thing to be done about it!!
'Third case' - - so percipient, a seering light overshadowing all else!!!
ThrenodioII - - #255 '..help' won't be enough if this is in the mind.
Complain about this comment
@ 109 DurstigerMann
"Speaking of which, how did they think that this could work, taking in these poor countries into the monetary union."
Maybe they thought that a petroleum company like Petrom is good to be bought with peanuts money and some little bit of corruption. Or a gold exploitaition like the one in "Rosia Montana" in Romania. Or, I don't know, to sell some old F16 junks at prices of space shuttle.
In any act of corruption there are two parties - "the corrupter" and "the corruptee". Not to mention that those countries cannot access the European Funds because of the discriminatory "regulations", but they are contributing (as poor as they are) to the European budget.
Poor countries you are saying... No. There are just poor people in rich countries with corrupt leaders, and now in a rich corrupter European Union. Maybe you should consider getting rid of them just to get excuses to "why the things are turned so bad lately"? Oh no... No, no... Don't touch the banks and the financial institutions! They are legal, moral, and they will get the crisis down. Worldwide.
Complain about this comment
EUPris
Re #244 & EEC/EC/EU... "Grade A rubbish".
Have to part company there I'm afraid.
There was much to commend the European Economic Community in its circa 1970s-80s hey-day: A Free trade association with intentions of easing international issues by fair, balanced Trading, Travel & Tariffs.
Perhaps even a form of 'Elected' assembly circa 1979 with authority to actually shut-off the Annual Budget when it didn't 'balance' would have made the whole European project more acceptable, more democratic, and almost certainly such a powerful elected assembly would have averted the madness of the venal, corrupt drive toward the EU and EUro-currency founded on squalid political-ambition and double-accountancy methods.
Complain about this comment
MaudDib wrote :
Don't be silly. Russia has some of the best robber barons in the world. "They needed a little help getting started but as Darth would say, "the student has become the master". Look at the Russian mafia."
The problem, Maud, is that Russian mafia and Russian KGB/FSB thugs are usually the same people.
With thieves protecting robbers.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio_II (253):
You do understand that increased decentralization and divergence in national level will lead only to further centralization on the European level, because downsized public entities don't anymore have adequate resources to..
1) ..survey and oversee private organizations, i.e. large banks and financial institutions let alone soon to becoming European mega-banks.
2) ..participate and organize mega research and development projects from science to high-tech and armaments.
I would also make a note that divide and conquer has always been the way to manage large empires. For example if we would divide the EU to 100 member entities that would all send their representatives to EU to decide on common matters, what we would get would be more elevation of European level politics and not individual matters of entities. Just look for the US senate and congress, they mostly handle things from the Federal perspective and with heavy lobbying of private organizations.
The question isn't will we have more centralization, the question is how that centralization is brought to us and with what timetable.
Complain about this comment
French unionists are preparing to join their Greek and Spanish comrades in massive street protests.
Watch the ticker! [and your car!] ;-)
[not that BA unions are exacty benign]
Complain about this comment
@261 d_m
"I believe there are too many opportunities for others to manipulate it to there advantage. And there would be nothing you could do to stop them. For example, gold has a free market price and you can’t control it. Or, other countries could devalue their currency relative to yours and thereby gain significant trade advantages. "
What do you mean with "opportunities for others to manipulate"?
Of course, gold has a free market price, but it is not important whether your government can control it or not. Actually, that`s a good thing, because governments can`t just inflate this way.
And good luck for anyone trying to manipulate gold-prices, he/she/it will need it. ;)
As for another nation devaluating its currency in order to get a trade advantage. In my opinion, this is completely overrated.
By devaluating your currency, you make your own citizens poorer, imports more expensive, you name it. All that for a little little bit more export?
I`d rather suggest to become more competetive in another way.
All while my own currency would stay rock solid.
The gold standard is certainly not perfect, but it is the best I know of by far.
FIAT money is a lie.
Complain about this comment
250. At 5:14pm on 27 May 2010, democracythreat wrote:
A very long post, but very interesting.
And I thoroughly agree with your analysis bye the way.
But if there is no democracy, where’s the threat to it?
Complain about this comment
263. d_m
All right pilgrim.......... I'll be your huckleberry
Complain about this comment
"266. At 8:06pm on 27 May 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
EUPris
Re #244 & EEC/EC/EU... "Grade A rubbish".
Have to part company there I'm afraid."
This is why I respect cbw
Complain about this comment
"Watch the ticker! [and your car!] ;-)"
Can't decide whether its funny
Complain about this comment
#270 DurstigerMann:
There was a gold standard between WWI and WWII and we had the great depression. One of the problems then was that nations (I'm thinking Europe here, France, Germany no doubt there were others) devalued their currency relative to one another, no matter how unwise it might have been to do so, to gain a competitive advandage. Of course it didn't work and only made thing worse. But people and nations don't always act in their own best interest.
In the early '70s when the dollar was pegged to a gold price of 35 dollars an ounce and the free market price of gold crept up to around 40 dollars an ounce, some countries took that opportunity to exchange dollars for gold and then sell the gold at market prices making a tidy profit. In the end it made Bretton Woods unworkable. Couldn't, or more likely wouldn't, the same thing happen to any currency pegged to a specific gold price. And I'm pretty sure a country couldn't just keep adjusting the value of its currency based on a moving gold price because creditors would soon just demand gold instead of the currency.
Now I admit to being out here on thin ice with this discussion, so I have to tread carefully and I kind of want to head back closer to shore. You may well be right about the gold standard, but I can sure think of more reasons why it might not work than why it might. If previous attempts to use gold or silver as the basis for a currency haven't worked. why would it work now?
Complain about this comment
#272 MaudDib:
LOL.
Complain about this comment
China has entered the casino. It's going to try to prop up the Euro.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10176359.stm
I think they might get a haircut. They are breaking one of the most well known mantras in the markets, don't fight the ticker. Compared to the resources of the market itself, even they are a small player only able to move the market marginally for a short time. The Euro's at 1.236 up slightly off its lows.
Complain about this comment
More than any discussion about EU rules and institutional change Europe has to get its economies growing again. That is the real challenge.
Good luck with that I'd say, unless they can get another round of ponzi-scheme-like prosperity going it isn't going to happen. Prosperity was bought on credit and cannot be sustained. And what has been done so far in 'cuts' is not even the beginning. All countries are still running deficits, debts are still increasing and the time bomb is continueing to tick.
As I've mentioned a number of times, the party is well and truly over. But the baby boom generation that ran up the debts and deficits and handed themselves generous pensions isn't going to give up their perks without a fight.
Next stop: public sector pensions, which are also ponzi schemes propped up with taxpayers money.
Some people I know called me mr.negativity when I more or less predicted the collapse about 7-8 years ago saying the whole financial system was (is) unsustainable. I am gleefully reminding them of it today.
Because any simple brain could see that the increase in stock- and housing prices just simply did not make any sense whatsoever. Something simply cannot perpetually continue to increase in value by more than the inflation percentage. I only wish I had bet money on the collapse.
266. cool_brush_work wrote: Perhaps even a form of 'Elected' assembly circa 1979 with authority to actually shut-off the Annual Budget when it didn't 'balance' would have made the whole European project more acceptable, more democratic, and almost certainly such a powerful elected assembly would have averted the madness of the venal, corrupt drive toward the EU and EUro-currency founded on squalid political-ambition and double-accountancy methods.
If the socalled European 'parliament' had its way, integration and the drive towards abolishing more national democracy would go much faster even than it is undemocratically going today. You see, they've convinced themselves they are actually a real parliament and also that it is very democratic (neither of which is the case). They would have usurped all national parliaments remaining legislative powers years ago if they had been given the chance.
55.quietoaktree wrote: At least most of the European bridges will not collapse on their homeless.
Speaking of homeless. I was in Brussels last week and apart from the usual sites to visit and the lovely town squares and cafes, I was amazed by the number of homeless people on the streets there. There were so many of them. And also, many of the buildings in Brussels, particularly those outside the center and the evil empire's quarters, had such poorly maintained facades/exteriors that I thought that some of them were on the point of imminent collapse. Also, I found the streets to be very dirty compared to what I am used to.
I suppose it is partly reflective of the political situation in Belgium. An artificially created country out of two groups so diverse that there isn't anything that really binds them together except that they have similar passports. Belgium exists only because Britain was afraid that the territory might fall to France. The failed model of the EU is perfectly at display in Belgium: imposing a common 'identity' from the top, a political system that can only be superficially described as democratic, desperately trying to hold up the illusion of a succesful state. But the facade is crumbling, no amount of money will be enough to prop it up forever.
And to think that the Belgian model is what they want for all of EU-rope.
Complain about this comment
249.phoenix wrote: Now you may still elbow your way to a bigger slice of the cake(looking at france), but even the least member has a bigger slice than when he would have just worked in his own interest.
Germany would have a 'bigger slice' outside the EU. So would Netherlands, and Denmark, and Britain. Suggesting that all countries benefit is ludicrous. The EU isn't a money generating machine that you put a euro or a pound in and then get two back in the long run. One country can only benefit at another's expense. It is truly a zero sum game.
And in this we must not forget that the volume of trade would not be one iota smaller if the EU didn't exist. The EU did not invent trade and is not a free trade zone but a customs union. Trade should not count as an EU benefit and positive effects of trade cannot be attributed to the EU.
Complain about this comment
#278/279 mvr512:
Thanks. Please, contribute more often.
Complain about this comment
278. At 10:35pm on 27 May 2010, mvr512 wrote:
" ...
many of the buildings in Brussels, particularly those outside the center and the evil empire's quarters, had such poorly maintained facades/exteriors that I thought that some of them were on the point of imminent collapse. Also, I found the streets to be very dirty compared to what I am used to."
EUpris: Belgium was always like that compared to Holland. In the fifties a certain small boy was on the back seat of his parents car as they drove through Belgium into Holland. He commented that Holland was notably cleaner. Suddenly Holland seemed to be dirtier like Belgium. He commented on this to be told that they were back in Belgium for some strange reason.
In Germany in the 70s a certain half-Dutchman/half-Belgian who claimed to be a cousin of the Belgian king always claimed that it was only North Holland that was clean. The South, he claimed, was dirty.
Complain about this comment
266. At 8:06pm on 27 May 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
'EUPris
Re #244 & EEC/EC/EU... "Grade A rubbish".
Have to part company there I'm afraid.
There was much to commend the European Economic Community in its circa 1970s-80s hey-day: A Free trade association with intentions of easing international issues by fair, balanced Trading, Travel & Tariffs.'
EUpris: Sorry Old Boy! I'll have to part company with you on that one! There was already the completely absurd CAP. Prices for certain products were four times the world price. There were already mountains and lakes of certain excess products. Unemployment in the EEC was higher than in EFTA. In the seventies there was an excellent book in German called "Skandal Europa" I had to give mine away when I moved house.
Were you in the Campaign for an Independent Britain in the seventies?
Complain about this comment
Post 246.
OK, I'll bite. I'll "discuss".
"Firstly, you are stepping dangerously close to the idiot cliff. Switzerland isn't even in the EU."
I wrote
"Eurosceptics on the other hand will never accept political union with 'foreigners' because they view them as inferior or distrustfull, and goes into a rabid fury at the mere thought of a(insert random european nationality i.e swiss)having any power over his affairs"
Discuss."
Amusing. I was originally going to be stereotypical and write Germany as an example of one nation a eurosceptic would baulk at having any effect on British national affairs. But then I thought I would highlight the point by picking Swizeland i.e any european foreigner being unacceptable, not just one in the EU club.
I totally forgot about Democracythreats Swiss flag waving tendancy. While I have to admire their voting habits (a swiss friend used to show me photos of people voting by raising their hand in the town square) I was not aware that I Impuned the swiss standard of living or their culure of voting in my post.
I would not have any problem with another european having a political effect on my life swiss or otherwise. I want to get to the root as to why eurosceptics do.
To be fair I was awaiting a response from whiteenglishandprou...sorry.. EUprisoner902456731 and his ideas on why we should not be in a political union with (insert european nationality EU or otherwise)
Mind you He could probably find a reason why he wouldnt want to be in Political Union with the swiss too.
Complain about this comment
From Open Europe:
'Van Rompuy admits citizens were misled about the euro
The Telegraph reports that EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has admitted that the "man in the street" was misled about the true economic and political implications of adopting the euro. "Nobody ever told the proverbial man in the street that sharing a single currency was not just about making peoples' lives easier when doing business or travelling abroad, but also about being directly affected by economic developments in the neighbouring countries," he said on Tuesday evening. "Being in the 'Euro zone' means, monetarily speaking, being part of one 'Euroland'."
He added that "We are clearly confronted with a tension within the system, the ill-famous dilemma of being a monetary union and not a full-fledged economic and political union. This tension has been there since the single currency was created. However, the general public was not really made aware of it." ...'
Complain about this comment
273. At 9:20pm on 27 May 2010, Gheryando wrote:
"... This is why I respect cbw"
EUpris: It's a pity you don't respect the wishes of the British people as whole.
Complain about this comment
266. At 8:06pm on 27 May 2010, cool_brush_work wrote:
' ...
Perhaps even a form of 'Elected' assembly circa 1979 with authority to actually shut-off the Annual Budget when it didn't 'balance' would have made the whole European project more acceptable, more democratic, and almost certainly such a powerful elected assembly would have averted the madness of the venal, corrupt drive toward the EU and EUro-currency founded on squalid political-ambition and double-accountancy methods.'
EUpris: It would have been no better than the "EU-parliament" is today.
Then as now British membership was based on lies and treachery. Voting for a parliament which had no right to exist would not have made the thing legitimate. It might have fooled some into thinking it was legitimate. British membership of the Common Market/EEC was itself undemocratic.
It would have been like letting the Falklanders vote in the Argentinian elections after the invasion.
Complain about this comment
The markets actions yesterday and today would suggest that China not only has its boot on the neck of America but that of Europe as well. What are we? Masochist?
Complain about this comment
#4. DurstigerMann wrote:
"Where are democratic reforms so Germans can actually control their politicians. We don`t even have a say on who exactly is voted into the parliament. This is up to the parties."
Who are the parties? Their members.
Join one and influence who are chosen for candidates - don't and accept that others decide for you.
Complain about this comment
David: On post 203, about 40% of the winners of the “Nobel Prize in Economics” (i.e. the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences) have been Europeans. It was not money, but the love of money that was considered the root of all evil.
phoenix: For post 228, does that mean that (for example) pro-EU Greeks must by definition accept the possibility of EU states other than Greece having political power over their affairs, and that only anti-EU Greeks can go into “rabid furies” at that mere thought?
DurstigerMann: In post 234, perhaps it would be easier to imagine Germany alone reïntroducing a gold standard. The German government currently holds about 3400 tonnes of gold; that would be about 9,5 billion marks of the 1873 standard (at 2790 marks per kg of fine gold). However, in 1998, the Bundesbank M1 money supply was about 910 billion DM. It is probably reasonable to presume that the equivalent M1 is greater now than it was in 1998, so a restored DM on a gold standard would be backed by no more than 3,7 mg of gold. If gold trades at (to use a round number) €1000 per ounce, then each gold DM would be backed by at most €0,12 worth of gold. Does this match your dream?
generalissimo: Regarding post 240, that exchange formula looks quite familiar: I presume that the lev used to be fixed to the DM?
democracythreat: Your total tax percentage in post 246 is also lower than those in North America for all but the poorest. If you own property there, does that total also include property tax(es)?
d_m: Post 261 is a bit off. Individuals had not been able to exchange their dollars for gold since 1933, as FDR made most private ownership of gold coins and bullion illegal in the States. The USD gold standard ended in 1971 not because “it was no longer working”, but because the Federal Reserve had printed too many dollars for its gold reserves, and thus couldn’t meet its gold-backed promises.
Complain about this comment
MayDib wrote: "The markets actions yesterday and today would suggest that China not only has its boot on the neck of America but that of Europe as well. What are we? Masochist?"
Maoists seem to have a franchise on blowing up passenger trains in India
as well. [forget Maoist atrocites in Nepal]
Complain about this comment
#245. At 2:48pm on 27 May 2010, DurstigerMann
"Would you mind elaborating on how the Euro in itself exactly benefited Germany?
All this "the Euro benefited Germany so much" talk tires me, because it always comes up to force upon "more integration".
Where has Germany benefited? The normal citizens certainly have not.
I`d even go as far as to say that within the last 10-15 years, mostly under the Euro, there has been a very unhealthy development towards more export and the domestic market shrunk to an unhealthy degree."
of course I can elaborate. It applies to Germany and not Germans! Germans have been in the last 10 - 15 years systematicaly cheated by their government(s) and for the vast majority of them, their wealth has been reduced, their Gini index went up (gap between rich and not rich). Germany the country (not the Germans) on the other has grown richer on the back of the Euro. German companies in construction, telecoms, Engineering have sold by the bucketload to the rest of the EU without the fear that their future returns will be worth less because the countries they invest into devalue their currencies. In almost every development project in Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc. there will be a French, German, UK construction company involved. They are there because they know it 15 years when they collect road taxes it will be a 1 EURO that they can use back in Germany to pay their shareholders. It will not be 5000 Lira or 1000 Drachma, with no clue what its value will be. How many trains do you think Siemens would have sold to Greece or Spain if they didn't use the Euro? If the Euro did not give Germany a competative advantage why do you think German exports to for example Spain & Greece in the last 10 years increased by over 100% while exports from Greece & Spain to Germany increased 15% - 30%?
On another point why does the EU need poorer members? If you haven't worked then I'm a bit worried. Just think how many more roads, bridges, railtracks do you think Germany needs? I can tell that here in the UK we have more than we need and I know for sure you there in Germany have even more and better than our. So, that's why the EU needs some poor countries, so that our companies can sell their services and products to them, because we already have more than we need.
Complain about this comment
#287
MaudDib wrote: "What are we? Masochists?" No, we are desperate!
Complain about this comment
#284,
Well pointed out! It is about time people woke and realised the Euro had benefits and obligation. I'm fully aware of that and I strongly support the Euro.
When I pay my tax I don't care if that money will be used by the government to do some work in my suburb here in London, in a village in Wales a city in NI or a bridge in Sofia. To me it is all the same! As long as my standards of living are ok, I don't care how that money is spend!
Complain about this comment
#277. At 9:54pm on 27 May 2010, MarcusAureliusII
Ohh Marvelous,
I admire people with such strong faith in (markets, god, after life, monsterss, etc.) it never stops to surprice me how any one can have such an unquestionable faith in what they believe in :)))
Complain about this comment
@261 d_m
"Impelmenting a gold standard today would be fraught with almost insurmountable problems. So it seems to me anyway."
I thank you for this comment. Shall appriciate if others will join us in the discussion.
Complain about this comment
@252 Nik
"...fortunes of Bulgaria and Romania will change only if EU decides to move on to a closer commercial relationship with Russia but so far the signs remain mixed and overall relatively negative."
I totally agree. Berlin & Paris have other troubles now...
"...I really do not wish to play the Cassandra and bring bad omens but that is my understanding from what I see up to know. Hope though that Bulgaria does better, it will affect us too as Greece and Bulgaria are not competitors but complementary partners..."
I do not see any sustainable reason for whatever misunderstanding between us. On the contrary, our folks are interested in developing the local infrastructure, the tourism and the local industries. The process seems, so far, to be irreversible. Melnik, Petritsh, Sandanski, Blagoyevgrad and other towns in the valley of Struma are already accustomed to see your folks going shopping there /the prices here are two times lower!/. At the same time, the Hellkedikhi peninsular is full of Bulgarian tourists who met there....the Russians! (I wonder where Alice is now?)
Complain about this comment
MaudDib?
THAT Would explain alot. (Are we masochist[s]?)
Yes, masochists all (and proud of it?)
This, to me, has been one of the best threads ..to me, though, in Quite Some Time:)
I have especially liked d_m's contributions....And
I learned that Web Alice is alive and well (in brain and body).
Wa, you'll make it.
I have been coping lately while being in abject pain and in mental stress--I'm even showing up at work everyday..the fashion these days, drat
(I now have no lower teeth--well 3--and I'm trying to find financing for "new" lower teeth--success assured... as debt is fashionable, too--but still on liquid diet(ing)--guess I'll be poor and thin instead of well...you know...)
If I was rich, ie not having to work for the next month, it would be so much more fun, but funzies "are not allowed."
Are you ok?, um..if not, remember Moses and that time when he and his people had to "live off the land." That (robbing peter to pay paul, I guess) can work temporarily.
Just be careful and maybe get a "valium" type attitude while coping.
Much love and luck,
David
Complain about this comment
Also, I spent ANOTHER 2 hours reading all these posts tonite..thank you all posters here:) Its a feast of info...and Go Nik (continue writing):))))
You, Nik, offer, at least, interestingness ...to me.:)
Complain about this comment
All this Europe-bashing is getting a bit tedious. It's irrelevant whether you retire at 65 or 60 or 53. The point is how much you've paid into the system and over what period of time. The relationship between gross and net salary is relatively unfavourable in many European countries. In other words, deductions are high. Of course the books need to balance but you have a right to get what you've paid for over time. This point seems to have been entirely neglected in the headlong rush to put on hair shirts and bow to the superiority of 'globalisation'.
Complain about this comment
#268 - Jukka Rohila
True. What I have in mind is a system in which certain essential elements - defence, foreign policy, macro-economic policy and strategic planning (energy security, etc) would be coordinated from the centre with all other matters devolved.
Similarly with the judicial process. Law which clearly has to apply across the EU - relating to human rights and other cross border matters would remain the province of the ECJ but matters of national and regional significance would be decided in the context of local systems and traditions. I would like to move away from the vision of the ECJ as a law-making institution to one of arbitration within the extant legal framework.
Complain about this comment
EUPris
Re #286
Unsure of your reasoning.
I was one of millions who voted 'Yes' in the Referendum on PM Wilson's renegotiated terms for UK Membership of the EEC/Common Market. I did not in April 1975 and do not now believe I was cheated, but I do believe much more should have been said on the topic of the #supraNational political intentions#. It might well have changed voter intentions though we shall never know. To his credit I recall Cabinet Minister Tony Benn touring the Nation warning of these hidden longterm goals but I suppose like many others I did not really pay much attention. A fault of my making, but no reason, as appears to be the EU line of argument, for my grandchildren to be treated as though such a mistake was binding on them.
It serves no useful purpose now to demand a Referendum on the basis the last 1 was illegal or we were lied to: Of course the 'ever closer union' political-intent was certainly kept in the background, but there was much else that persuaded us millions to support the pan-National venture. It was by Referendum that support for the EEC was expressed.
UK General Elections like all National elections are not about the EU. The EU is a specific political entity and only elections, referenda specific to issues arising from it have any Democratic value as a means of expressing support or otherwise for the EU and its institutions.
That said, IMO nothing wrong in the 1950s/60s era with pan-National deals for 'common' Trade Tariffs, easing Transport/Communication, pooling economic resources (e.g. Iron & Steel) where they already by previous Pacts been shown to be effective. Though clearly nothing stands still and just as those have changed due to circumstance so must the EEC, but the issue then arises as to how those changes are effected.
The argument/debate/demand for UK/England to make a choice in the modern era is totally justified on modern events that have transformed the former 'Trading' group into a 'Political' entity: Of vital importance is the point that at no time in the last 20 years have the UK/England Citizens given their Democratic consent to be a part of the post-Maastricht supra-National political union that now exists.
Citizen consent is the key issue: It is why the EU is so unpopular & doomed to failure in the longterm (within a decade) - - I'm not too concerned with what the 'pro-EU' have to say on the matter as they choose to support the duplicitous reasoning & activity of the EU Leadership. The plain fact is the Citizens of UK & EUrope have not been given a Democratic voice in this entirely new entity.
No Representation = Anti-Democratic & corruption and equals present EU.
I'm afraid with the best will in the world all the 'pro-EU' claims about the Treaty of Rome 1956 and the intention of 'ever closer union' does not bear scrutiny. It cannot mean in 2010 UK/England and EUropean Citizens must just accept the EU as a fait accompli because a vague idea was in a Treaty some 50+ years ago. On that basis the gallant Hungarians who rose up in 1956 were in the wrong because their elected Government had some years earlier signed a Pact with the USSR! That is just nonsense and blatantly undemocratic.
My #266 point on the European Parliament was straightforward: Under Heath & Wilson terms of entry a European Parliament was proposed (a reason I voted 'yes'). I admit I took it to mean the Members would have the power to significantly change things - - completely the reverse of the transpired reality - - and my inference was if the original elected Parliament (which millions of Britons initially did support) had been able to slam the door shut on the Annual Budget whenever it didn't balance then those conniving Brussels apparatchiks & over-ambitious supra-National politicians would not have been able to advance the 'ever closer union' clause in such a high-handed and venal manner.
As it is, at no point since 1979 in the evolution to the present EU, has the EUropean Parliament properly represented its Citizen Constituents' interests, aspirations & concerns. MEPs have in the main been far too wrapped-up in the political process of aggrandizing their 'importance' in Political-Brussels as opposed their 'relevance' to Citizens Lives.
Had the European Parliament had the ultimate powers from the start to effectively break the Commission stranglehold on policy-making it would have led to a far more cautious, considered approach to 'union'. That would have meant involving the Citizens of each Member Nation at every stage. It did not occur: Result, declining Citizen participation at every EP Election since 1979> a 43% Voter Turnout in 2009! An EU Presidency repeatedly proclaiming #Public Support# when nothing of the sort is evident> Citizens repeatedly Voting 'No' to Brussels legislation on the few occasions they are given a choice.
And no wonder! Citizens are disillusioned. Unlike the EEC, the EU is founded on political chicanery by an elite political body and not Citizen Representation. It continues to thrive on gerrymandering, e.g. Eire Referendum, Lisbon Treaty Ratification etc., deliberate corrupt practises e.g. EUro qualification, and for many other undemocratic elements that have developed within it. It will not suffice for EU supporters to state Lisbon is inplace so get over it when many Citizens feel rightly or wrongly that the Democratic process has been subverted. Democracy is not about the system most suited to those who would Govern, not about it being too much trouble for those in authority to have to change things, and most certainly is about the Citizens Right and Responsibility to be best served by Political arrangements they have approved in a Democratic process.
IMO for those modern reasons> the EU is insupportable.
Complain about this comment
255. At 5:53pm on 27 May 2010, threnodio_II wrote:
"""#248 - Nik
I think you have finally lost the plot altogether.
Austria to make war to secure a seaport? Greece to subvert EU energy supplies? Italy to grab all the seagoing traffic at a stroke?
Wonderful sense of humour Nik - at least I hope so because, if you are even half serious, you are in urgent need of help."""
At a stroke = in a decade...
Threnodio, I just gave example of things that the EEC/EU has offered to Europe. Good or bad it brought some stability with the geographically little European countries (and I refer to France, Germany etc., the likes of Austria and Greece are tiny) trying to arrange things and come to some consensus. I said the above very theoretical example just to show the considerations that the people always forget to take into accoun, but it is these things that move the world. It is not gimmicks like the ipads of Mr. Jobs as some wish to pass to us. We changed the world, we invented the car, the computer and the internet and still the world's fate is governed to the same extense by more or less (add 1 subtract 1) by the same bunch of people that were there 200 and 300 years back. And people just do not want to realise this. It is guns, ressources and traderoutes that move the world all the rest follow.
Complain about this comment
#299 - Mark
I agree with you and I certainly don't see the current situation as cause to bash the EU. I do, however, make the point about 'how much you have paid into the system'. The issue for me is that, in many European countries, you will not have been 'paying into the system' at all. What you have been doing is paying an additional tax into the general revenue fund. Failure to ring fence this income for the intended purpose has paradoxically given governments the opportunity to announce that they can no longer afford the level of pensions and social benefits currently paid. Of course they can't. They have been spending our contributions on foreign policy adventures, unnecessary weapons systems and heaven knows what else.
Complain about this comment
@Nik,
Nik the BBC reports "Greek PM's phone cut by mistake" tell us Nik did you do it? Did you have abything to do with it? Or is it that this guy is trying to be cleaner than the clean that he even cuts off his own telephone line if he doesn't pay his bills?:))))
Complain about this comment
@ 298 David
I wonder where Alice is?
Complain about this comment
#301 - cool_brush_work
I am half way with you on this. Of course it is possible to argue that the general election of 1992 was a test of Maastrict in the sense that ratification was a manifesto commitment of the Major government but it is also the case that no major party opposed it, which invalidates it as a test.
My position is a very simple one. I can see absolutely no constitutional or legal basis to call a referendum on Lisbon or any other existing arrangements. Having said that, it is equally clear as matter of practical politics that European issues are invariably overshadowed by other considerations at general elections allowing the parties to fudge the whole issue with the result that there is never effective electoral consultation. Given that, amongst those of us who are interested in the question, it has now become deeply divisive, the time must surely have come when the substantive question is put - namely do the citizens of the UK wish to remain in the EU?
It is the only question worth asking and I repeat that there is no legal basis for asking it but it seems to me the only way of resolving the question once and for all. The Coalition's commitment to referenda on any subsequent treaty arrangements seems to me a red herring unless and until we know whether there is any popular appetite for the project as a whole. For this reason alone, I favour a referendum on continued membership.
Complain about this comment
@301 CWB
"Had the European Parliament had the ultimate powers from the start to effectively break the Commission stranglehold on policy-making it would have led to a far more cautious, considered approach to 'union'. That would have meant involving the Citizens of each Member Nation at every stage. It did not occur: Result, declining Citizen participation at every EP Election since 1979> a 43% Voter Turnout in 2009! An EU Presidency repeatedly proclaiming #Public Support# when nothing of the sort is evident> Citizens repeatedly Voting 'No' to Brussels legislation on the few occasions they are given a choice."
The Commission is answerable to the Parliament, draws up legislation the Council and Parliament ask for, it can be fired by the Parliament, and future EU elections will have the Parliament choose the President of the Commission, rather than confirm. In effect functioning much the same way the British Parliament and the position of PM.
Also in the past thirty years, there have been no fewer than 32 national referenda in European countries on further EU integration, and all but four have produced pro-integration majorities, often as high as 89 or 90%, and often with very high turnouts.
A record of 28 victories out of 32 - that's 88% - would be regarded as a remarkably positive result in any national election campaign. Yet Eurosceptics seize on the very few occasions where one or another country has said no to a particular development in order to suggest that the whole EU project has been bereft of public support.
Complain about this comment
Phoenix (283) : I am not sure what your point is in saying that the EU is not a nation. That is beyond dispute. It is however most certainly an institutional arrangement where a qualified majority of nations can force the outvoted minority to obey European laws and policies they do not agree with. And that is inherently un-democratic and undesirable.
I do not believe that there are any issues for which the EU is the appropriate level of decision-making. There are global issues like the environment for which intergovernmental meetings such as last winter’s UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen are the appropriate forum, but a limited regional body like the EU comprising only European countries cannot solve such global problems. And there are other issues (including so-called environmental ones like rules on rubbish collection) which do not affect anyone living in another country and which therefore should not be subject to EU decision-making. Indeed i cannot think of one issue for which the EU is the appropriate level of decision-making and challenge you to name even one which is not better addressed by local councils, nations-states or worldwide inter-governmental conferences such as the one in Copenhagen last year? Even the common market would better be replaced by a global free trade area without supranational ambitions.
I note that you are very keen to continually suggest that EU-sceptics like myself are xenophobic. You talk about the ‘indivisibility of mankind’ in your last post but i think this is a fantasy because nothing is more obvious than that mankind is no uniform block, but is rather composed of national communities each of which aspire to self-government. The real issue is not to subordinate all these nations to an overarching central authority, but rather how to ensure they peacefully co-exists side by side, and the evidence of the non-European world is that so long as they are democracies, nation-states can get along just fine using classical intergovernmental methods. Also, if you look at the arguments that most so-called pro-EUropeans use you will see very few of them arguing for a world supranational government .Indeed most of them argue against any more countries like Turkey joining the EU and the language they employ is about standing-up to the USA or invented bogeymen like “Chindia” or the G2. This language of pro-Europeans therefore has a xenophobic hue that you will certainly not find in any of my posts. Indeed i would suggest that pro-EUropeans who try to label EU-sceptics as xenophobes do so for any entirely different reason, namely to mask the paucity of their own arguments for the EU as it exists today.
Complain about this comment
#302 - Nik
The likelihood is that major conflicts in the next 100 years or so will stem from access to dwindling resources - food, water and energy. Europe is relative well placed in respect of the first two. Rising sea levels to not threaten vast swathes of inhabited land as they do in, for example, south east Asia. There is very little danger of Europe running out of water (although there are issues of transporting it to where it is needed - Cyprus for example) and self-sufficiency in food is possible when we stop pouring money into that black hole the CAP to take perfectly productive land out of production.
Energy security is an entirely different matter and it is the collective financial clout of the EU that is most likely to secure this. This is why central European countries have been hedging their bets by signing up to all of the pipeline proposals that are on the table. Fortunately the Russians currently need trade with Europe as badly as Europe needs their natural resources while the southern route opens up non-Russian supplies and gives a little competitive edge. In time hopefully a shift towards renewables will take on an irresistible progress but, for now, Europe must stick together on this.
Complain about this comment
Generalissimo,
She is probably not interested in this "stuff" She finds money kind of a boring subject unless its the making of it or the cultural influence of it maybe...
I think next time you see her here, ask her which blogs she goes to (prob Russian speaking) and you'll see her there enjoying life)
This Euro thing is so negative and unfair I think and it makes me shudder that people are so concerned about "the morality of the euro" type nonsense.
Discussions of what IS democracy which of course is subjective and futuristic (speculative) at best probably drives her nuts too.
Complain about this comment
@ 277 Marcus
"I think they might get a haircut. They are breaking one of the most well known mantras in the markets, don't fight the ticker. Compared to the resources of the market itself, even they are a small player only able to move the market marginally for a short time. The Euro's at 1.236 up slightly off its lows. "
The "Markets" are not a single entity with a single leader. It's more akin to a beast thrashing about in a panic, and as such, needs taming like a beast.
Regulation as the leash, profit as the carrot, and jail as the stick.
Also, how about sorting out all that debt, Western World.
Complain about this comment
#305 - generalissimo
She is in hiding having kidnapped the moderator.
Complain about this comment
#307 - Benefactor
"Also in the past thirty years, there have been no fewer than 32 national referenda in European countries on further EU integration . . ."
How many in Britain? You can see their point.
Complain about this comment
299. At 09:27am on 28 May 2010, Mark wrote:
All this Europe-bashing is getting a bit tedious.
EUpris: As long as they force the "EU"-Dictatorship on us, we have to fight on.
I don't post here to entertain you.
Complain about this comment
Benefactor (307): “there have been no fewer than 32 national referenda in European countries on further EU integration, and all but four have produced pro-integration majorities”
What planet do you live on? Back here on earth the Danish voted against Maastricht, the Irish against Nice and Lisbon, the French and Dutch against the EU Constitution, the Swedish against the Euro. Not to mention multiple referendums in Switzerland and Norway against joining the EU at all. In any case referendums have only been held when either constitutionally required, or the government felt they would win. On occasions there was an ’unexpected’ result in an existing member-state the people were forced to vote again until they said YES. There have been no referendums in countries where the result would obviously be a NO.
As for the EU Parliament, it has never represented any interest other than its own institutional self-interest in accumulating more power and perks. It should not have the power to decide the composition of the EU Commission, nor indeed the pay and expenses of MEPs which are out of control. The EU Parliament has failed for 30 years and counting to provide democratic legitimacy to EU decision-making which has declined while the power of the EU Parliament was being increased. It is time to declare the EU Parliament a failed experiment and abolish it. Federalists continue to pretend that giving it more powers will solve the EU democracy problem, but repeating what has been proved not to work for 30+ years is the definition of stupidity.
Complain about this comment
Thrednodio (309) : “Energy security is an entirely different matter and it is the collective financial clout of the EU that is most likely to secure this.”
That statement bears no relationship with reality. European countries get their energy from many different sources, with UK wholesale suppliers having negotiated long-term agreements with Norway and stable middle east countries like Quatar, France from Algeria and Eastern European countries from Russia. The British government does not buy our energy for us, but leaves it to the market so there should be no question of Brussels taking up a role not suitable for government. Certain dirigiste governments on the Continent do intervene in these supply relationships, but should an EU buying cartel composed of dirigiste governments be formed in Brussels, then it would inevitably invite the formation of a OPEC-like cartel between Russia and Algeria in response, leaving us all worse off than under current market arrangements.
The great problem with EU-supporters is that they unthinkingly accept half-baked arguments from politicians for centralising power in their own few hands in Brussels, even when it should be obvious it will be Joe Public who will bear the extra cost of these cartels.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John
Re #308
Many good points.
Particularly enjoyed the expose of the 'pro-EU' xenophobia charge against 'anti-EU' as the reverse of the case.
It is a constant source of wonder when a 'pro-EU' pronounces the 'anit-EU' is the 'little englander', 'imperialist', 'WW2 rearguard' etc. Often after the 'anti' put forward non-national views & grounds for opposing the EU. It seldom seems to occur to them (phoenix being a classic) that they are using 'stereotypical xenophonia' about the people they are criticising!
Complain about this comment
#310 - David
"Discussions of what IS democracy which of course is subjective and futuristic (speculative) at best . . . "
I am surprised at you David. Didn't they teach you that democracy is "government of the people, for the people, for the people"?
Whether anyone will ever get round to creating one is highly speculative but, if they do, don't blink because someone else will find a way to bypass it before you can say Abe Lincoln.
Complain about this comment
#314 - EUprisoner209456731
"I don't post here to entertain you".
Oh, sorry. We are supposed to take inflammatory remarks about "forc(ing) the "EU"-Dictatorship on us" seriously are we?
Complain about this comment
314. At 12:58pm on 28 May 2010, EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
'I don't post here to entertain you.'
Well, you succeed in that respect at least. And while you keep on using terms like 'EU Dictatorship' you cannot expect many people to take you seriously.
Complain about this comment
Benefactor
Re #307
Just on the most recent EUro-zone/Greek debacle: Sorry, which bit of the multi-billion Tax-payer 'rescue package' is the EUropean Parliament going to consider never mind 'fire'!?
Which of the Brussels MEPs have reflected their Constituents concerns about the 'cuts in public spending', 'raising taxation', 'failure to prosecute greedy bankers', never mind actually proposing any legislation at all on these matters in support of the Citizens they claim to Represent!?
Instead those MEPs are going to rubber-stamp the Commission policy-making just like they have ever since Maastricht. The EUropean Parliament is a failure as a democratic institution.
Interesting choice of Referendum to which You refer: The euphoria surrounding the freeing of East Europe from Soviet domination and the application to join Referendum are well known.
However, we are also all aware Denmark & Eire have held Referendum and voted 'No' to certain key EU elements, as indeed did Norway to joining the EU, of course the 1st Eire Referendum didn't stand, but I think we have to include it, alongside the France & Dutch 'No' to Constitution Referendum (as we must inc. the Spanish 'Yes').
I'm not denying there has been success for the EU political venture among the Citizens - - I am stating that nothing like Your "90%" is the rate & that as is typical of so many 'pro-EU' You attempt to twist & turn the reality to claim evidence simply not borne out by analysis.
Since 1979 every EUropean Parliament has had reduced Voter Participation: Since Maastricht almost 90% of Referendum on changing/amending the terms & conditions of membership have been rejected by the Citizens. That is the reality.
Duplicity: It doesn't come anymore clearly than in Your classic 'pro-EU' version of Referendum.
When 2 of the Founding Member Nations categorically reject in Democratic ballot a proposed EU Constitution and it is simply introduced under another guise You claim that "..particular development.." was not an indicator the EU was "..bereft of public support.."!
No real importance! Would that be Your line had the Vote been 'Yes'!? Of course not: The EU-Brussels entity didn't propose the Constitution because it didn't matter! When that Citizen rejection is taken alongside the EP Voter turnout in the period there is no doubt at all the EU struggled for any public support for its grandiose plans!
Did it change course? No, but it did ignore the Citizens.
Furthermore, just like the 'Constitution', Eire did Vote 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty: Where is Your attachment to the principle of Referendum result in that instance? Is it not that the 'pro-EU' in general will take any result so long as it is 'Yes' to the EU!?
Did the EU submit any of those Membership Application Referendum for a 2nd tilt at the windmill of Citizen acclamation: Oh, but wait! They were all 'Yes' Votes, weren't they!?
80% to 90% Voter turnout on 'membership' is impressive. So is 57% non-Turnout for the EP, but whereas the first is claimed as reason for everything being okay in the EU, the latter is simply overlooked as inconvenient despite it being the only Democratic option available to the EUropean Citizens.
Afterall, the 'democratic' EU Voters' voice at Referendum as we have seen from the Constitution & the Lisbon Treaty is not 'Yes' and therefore is unacceptable to Brussels.
Since those Baltic & East European nations heady integrationist moments it is my understanding none (except compulsory voting) have ever attained 50% Voter Turnout in EUropean Parliament Elections! So, 80 to 90% 'Yes' is fine and even lowly 43% 'Yes' is fine, but '57%' non-vote or 50+% 'No' vote in Referenda are aberrations and no need for the EU to pay attention to them.
Your EUropean Parliament does not hold the Commission to account; it merely talks about doing so - - nothing by MEPs remotely refers to the EUropean Citizens' - - they act independently of any Constituency and for You to pretend otherwise just leaves You open to ridicule. MEP response to Citizen concern on.. unemployment, immigration, cross-border rackateering? There is none! MEPs act in isolation from the Citizens not in response/reaction to them: That is not Democratic Representation.
Finally, I have often written this and repeat: Do not argue the EU system resembles the UK/England one as if that is a commendation - - unless the EU offers something far more credible, more Democratically functional than that at present in the UK there is no purpose in opting for the EU.
Complain about this comment
#316 - Freeborn John
Clearly I should have been more specific. I was referring to gas supplies on which much of mainland Europe is heavily dependent and, in particular those countries who rely almost exclusively on Russian sources. Smaller countries simply do not have the resources to for example to fund the huge debt that Ukraine has incurred with Gazpron and thus guarantee continuity of supply. I do not suggest that there is any virtue in Europe becoming involved in oil purchases.
In the longer term, a more realistic approach to nuclear generation might be an option and again I would agree that this does not require any EU coordination or control.
Complain about this comment
#315. At 1:24pm on 28 May 2010, Freeborn John
Also most EU sates had a referedum to join or not, so the fact they are in it I guess the results were yes! So what does that tell us? Does it tell us that appart from Switzerland & Norway all other European states are pro-EU?
Complain about this comment
284.EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
From Open Europe:
'Van Rompuy admits citizens were misled about the euro
The Telegraph reports that EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has admitted that the "man in the street" was misled about the true economic and political implications of adopting the euro.
Did he suggest that 'more EU' would be a solution to the problem? Anyway nice to be vindicated on this point, I've always said peoples were misled on this. And this of course raises the interesting question: on what other things EU-related have politicians deliberately deceived us?
Complain about this comment
307.Benefactor wrote: The Commission is answerable to the Parliament, draws up legislation the Council and Parliament ask for, it can be fired by the Parliament, and future EU elections will have the Parliament choose the President of the Commission, rather than confirm. In effect functioning much the same way the British Parliament and the position of PM.
The politburo/commission is answerable to the EU 'parliament'? Well, not really, only in a few selected matters, and the commission has legislative initiative, not the 'parliament'. And the 'parliament' cannot 'fire' the commission nor can it 'sack' individual commission kommissars. Furthermore, the EU parliament itself isn't democratic. Why not? There is no proportional representation, election mandates are national mandates and the socalled EU parliament cannot impose any agenda because only commission/council can.
Also in the past thirty years, there have been no fewer than 32 national referenda in European countries on further EU integration, and all but four have produced pro-integration majorities, often as high as 89 or 90%, and often with very high turnouts.
A record of 28 victories out of 32 - that's 88% - would be regarded as a remarkably positive result in any national election campaign. Yet Eurosceptics seize on the very few occasions where one or another country has said no to a particular development in order to suggest that the whole EU project has been bereft of public support.
Let's see: YES vs NO
'Lisbon': 1-1
European constitution: 2-2
'Nice' 1-1
Euro currency 0-2
'Amsterdam' 2-0
'Maastricht 3-1'
Single European act 2-0
UK 'stay in EEC' 1-0
2004 enlargement 9-0
1995 enlargement 4-1 (includes referendum of Aland islands)
1973 enlargement 3-1 (also includes French referendum)
So it is 13-7 for referendums held by 'insiders' and 15-2 in referendums held by outsiders (countries looking forward to receiving 'free' billions of moneys, therefore essentially bribed). And in the past decade, the result is 4-6, a true indicator of how public support is falling away. More people voted NO in the 00's than YES, even when including national MP's voting on treaties most of them neither read nor understood.
And 12-7 would have looked different if the promised and proposed referendums on the constitution in 2005 (Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria) would not have been cancelled. Opinion polls in each at the time favored the NO side so it could have been 12-12. Hardly a resounding mandate I would say. It gets even worse if you take the reruns of referendums out. For some reason, referendums that produce a YES are never rerun.
And furthermore, some of the referenda that produced a YES we have now learned in the meantime that politicians deliberately lied to get a YES vote. The UK vote for example, many people asked about the political integration that was mentioned in previous treaties, and politicians flat out denied this was the case. Honesty would have produced a different referendum result. Furthermore, France cheated in the 1992 referendum. Metropolitan France rejected 'Amsterdam' but through the overseas votes of indigenous peoples (most of whom had never heard of the EU) did they squeeze out a narrow 'YES'.
And of the accession referenda, would you not vote to join a 'club' that effectively promised you 20 billion at other countries expense for the first 7 years of joining?
And besides, the EU's own rules say that a single NO means a proposed treaty is shelved.
So the claim that the EU has an overwhelming 'mandate' based on referendums results is to put it mildly: patently ridiculous. Particularly when taking into account frantic efforts by EU-ites to deny referendums where they know they will lose them.
Complain about this comment
May I have a question to the British commenters? Why is that there are (seemingly at least) a lot more people against the EU in the UK, than in other countries? Is that because you are afraid of a) the EU controlling your country, or that b) you have no control over the EU?
I find this interesting, as you have a more or less master-slave partnership with the US, and that weirdly does not bother people at all. (With rather questionable reasoning they even took you into a never-ending war -end even this did not change anything.)
Complain about this comment
I'm not British but I want to address 326 anyway. Where did you get this idea from that the British are the only ones opposed to political integration? I want to inform you that this is a myth. Opposition in Netherlands, Germany, Austria runs equally deep.
Furthermore, please don't use that ridiculous propaganda 'master-slave' relation with the US. That only exists in the imagination of leftist ideologues.
Why do you not, for example, question the commitment of France to any EU policy not beneficial to France? Historically, France has blocked more things than the others combined.
Complain about this comment
Csili
Re #326
"..you (UK) have a more or less master-slave partnership with the US.."
Guffaw, chortle, guffaw...
Oh dear, let us consider for a moment how it is You expect to win the hearts & minds, or at least attain even the semblance of a reasonable response from UK Citizens when Your opening remarks are an undiluted insult to Britons?
"..slave.."! To the USA: Really, You actually believe that?
Let us examine the facts.
Oh wait, there are none! You must have got Yourself mixed-up with someone who thought they had something worthwhile to contribute.
Now run along and be careful crossing the road, won't You.
Complain about this comment
Yes, I should have double checked those figures, my fault, rushing and all.
Anyway, having double checked from a couple of different website I get.
EU members only.
19 yes, 7 no.
If you include referenda on ascension (1st may) then it becomes:
28 yes, 10 no
If you include the Swiss Schengen Agreement then it becomes:
29 yes, 10 no
I may be wrong again, but only slightly (missed a few Swiss or Norwegian votes maybe?)
As for the Parliament:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_parliament#Powers_and_functions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codecision_procedure#Ordinary_legislative_procedure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature_of_the_European_Union
Complain about this comment
One more thing that I probably should have added to 326: my question was not meant to be a provocation. And also, I have not said that I was right. I was asking because I would like to know people's opinion, that is all.
Complain about this comment
CBW:
"You must have got Yourself mixed-up with someone who thought they had something worthwhile to contribute."
Are you sure that you are not talking about yourself? You call this an answer? I would call it noise.
And by the way, I did not want to insult you. However difficult to believe it, I really did not want to provoke. Not that I care if you mind it...
Complain about this comment
330. Csili
So calling a proud country with a storied history a slave to another country is not meant to be provocative? Ever hear of the saying "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."
Complain about this comment
Re #331
If You can't recognise that sort of insult wait until You've grown a few years and then come back & try again.
Complain about this comment
You must be a very mature and smart person, based on your answers. LOL
But however simple you and your answers are, you might have just answered my question anyway.
Complain about this comment
#326
Worst post ever...FACT. Master and slave my arse. The UK government might dick around with its own people, but the US doesnt dick around with the UK. Also,seeing as our government(s) refuse to ask us our opinions on the EU, how anyone could know what we think is beyond me. Csili you need to read some of the garbage posted by others who think they know the British. All seem to have the common compulsion to a) have the last word and b) refuse to quit when they are behind. Clueless dingbats, the whole lot.
Complain about this comment
Csili,
Keep posting. British people have good command of their language..don't worry ...
Threnodio II,
Good point.
CBW,
You are in a special good humor ("Guffaw, Chortle, Chuckle...") What is your secret? Much luck and success to UK! I, too, feel good...today, Friday...
Complain about this comment
CBW
your 301- great post- very well put. 328 was pretty good too!
Complain about this comment
David wrote:
"Discussions of what IS democracy which of course is subjective and futuristic (speculative) at best probably drives her nuts too."
So Switzerland is yet to happen, David?
Well then, hear now a voice from the future: It works.
Don't worry, your willful refusal to accept real democracy can work is so widespread it has become the elephant in the European room.
I mean, look at the map of Europe. Right slap bang in the middle, you have real democracy and the highest standards of living. Meanwhile, everything around that peaceful and wealthy centre lurches and grinds its way towards reinventions of the same old farce called representation.
Of course nobody is willing to accept that democracy is proved to work. If they accept that, how can they continue to proclaim their faith in representation?
If there is one thing that every party member agrees upon, it is that one simply cannot talk about real democracy as a viable system. Better to be a radical communist revolutionary than an advocate for direct democracy.
Direct democracy directly threatens the gravy train of the party system itself. It threatens to prevent bankers using their pet politicians as ATM's.
Hence my name on this blog. I don't mean to profess a threat TO democracy, but rather the threat OF democracy. There is no larger threat to the powers that be in Europe.
Complain about this comment
Dave and Generalissimo,
I don't know where I am myself.
Sufficient to say, I THOUGHT I am boarding a train to Moscow 2-3 hrs ago.
As minimum, was already standing on the platform, ears washed, ticket in hands, an award to the ex-General Manager packed (... awarded to tra la la ... Who Returned to the Cold) , Georgio Beverly Hills (yellow stripy ones)(energetic appeal) on, how to say?
I think I saw the Red Arrow car side .I think.
And now I am back home in the kitchen in St. Petersburg!
Things woosh by my ears so caleidoscopically quick last week.
I am sure I tried hard. To do what - not exactly sure.
Meteo-mum glanced now at the window, said the moon is taking a shrink down eh? mode of operation. starts to shrink. and that normal people don't do any thing, or hope for any luck, in the shrinking moon.
may be that's why. (didn't bother ab this before, though)
One thing is clear, I jumped upper than my ears past 2 weeks doing FOUR IMPORTANT THINGS - and none of them is done. dog un-operated, St. Jerome not sold ah what to say.
?
So, can't specify my whereabouts. :o)
Complain about this comment
326 Csili wrote:
"as you have a more or less master-slave partnership with the US, and that weirdly does not bother people at all...."
Spot on, Csili!
Complain about this comment
338. d_t
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ........Winston Churchill
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."........Winston Churchill
I agree with the Bulldog on both counts.
Complain about this comment
MaudDib wrote:
"338. d_t
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ........Winston Churchill
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."........Winston Churchill
I agree with the Bulldog on both counts. "
Churchill was born destined to be the Duke of Marlborough by bloodline. He was born into the British house of Lords, MaudDib. Quoting his views on democracy is like quoting Pol Pot on human rights reform.
In any case, he was referring to representation, not democracy, which is the hallmark of his class.
Complain about this comment
And Robin Hood was a thief. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Complain about this comment
"IF ONE GIVES ALL PEOPLE EQUAL CHANCES, THE WORST WILL PREVAIL;
FOR THEY CONSTITUTE A MAJORITY"
(Jose Ortgega y Gasset)
Complain about this comment
DemocThreat
Re #342
Whilst I understand Your basic intent in your comment on Churchill's attitude toward 'democracy' there are 3 points of difference I would make from Your conclusion.
1) By lineage Winston Spencer Churchill was indeed a member of the family that had taken the 'Duke if Marlborough' title & heritage - - however, barring a series of fatal calamities Winston was never going to be a Duke.
2) Comparing Pol Pot with Churchill is way over the top & once more exposes Your flawed views of the 'English speaking' peoples: Whilst Churchill via WW1 & WW2 activities was indirectly & directly responsible for much carnage it was not as part of a genocidal intent which Pot's Khmer Rouge plainly were in Cambodia.
NB: Should You not know - - Churchill was a 'war correspondent' in the South African campaign & its dark period of 'concentration camp' UK Military history wasn't of his doing.
When taking like-for-like in terms of Leadership & relevant experience during the time-frame (i.e. pre-1914 to post-1945) from the general 'democratic' political lists few can be compared to Churchill: I would suggest F D Roosevelt, C De Gaulle as more appropriate.
3) Quoting Churchill about 'democracy' is entirely relevant as he was leader of a Nation defending at times all forms of 'democracy' under threat - - it therefore is accurate & necessary to consider his views in any assessment. It is certainly more useful as an exercise than Your lamentably ill-judged categoric denunciations of all things English which serve only to reduce the value of Your often very salient contributions.
Complain about this comment
Margaret Howard
Re #342
I admit to surprise!
You usually make contributions that cause debate & are from certain perspectives very interesting and challenging.
That You think 'Master-slave' is "..spot on.." reveals a shallowness & prejudice in You I had not previously noted.
What a shame: For You.
Complain about this comment
Cool brush work, put down your flag and pull up your pants. I never compared Winston Churchill to Pol Pot. I said he was to democracy what Pol Pot was to human rights reform.
The man was born into an aristocratic family and had a seat in the parliament by virtue of his bloodline. And yet you state that he was defending "all forms of democracy at all times." Yeah, sure he was. Hence his quotation about the man in the street.
Look, the guy was an ARISTOCRAT. He was born into a class system that meant he could do whatever he felt like and he was always.... i repeat, ALWAYS going to be involved in the law making and leadership of his nation. Why? Because he and his family owned a very large part of it.
Your nationalism and hero worship of this prince of the realm is pathetic. That you maintain he is some kind of bastion for democracy is absolutely astoundingly childish. Clearly, whatever his qualities, he was never a symbol of democracy.
You just want to believe that because it suits you. It suits you to believe that you live in a modern country under modern political emancipation, because you see yourself as free and noble. It is the English disease, I'm afraid. You fellows blot out reality in order to cling onto the faint whiff of empire, and the ridiculous truth is that those in your society who actually DID make money out of their piracy and genocide would never have allowed you into their houses, except through he servants entrances.
That is what I find most disgusting about people like you, CBW. You are a crawling sycophant to people who wouldn't even speak to you if you were helping them. And you don't see it. You just bow and scrape and bow and scrape, and wipe the tears from your eyes as the band plays and the fine men march past in their uniforms. The emotional attachment is what strikes me most. You love the class system. It has a real hold on the way you see yourself in the world.
You are exactly the same as Winston from the novel 1984, at the end of the book.
Do you remember that, CBW?
Winston has been broken completely, to the point where he is unable to look at his girlfriend for shame, and then it occurs to him, as looks up at the picture of big brother, he really does love. With tears streaming down his cheeks he realizes he loves big brother.
That is the class system, CBW. That is what it does to people.
That is what your dear Winston represented.
Complain about this comment
MaudDib wrote:
"And Robin Hood was a thief. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
I believe in today's parlance he'd be referred to as a "terrorist". A grave threat to the entire world, a reason for more taxation, more soldiers in uniforms and more speeches by the sheriff.
Complain about this comment
326. At 4:43pm on 28 May 2010, Csili wrote:
"""...Is that because you are afraid of:
a) the EU controlling your country,
or that
b) you have no control over the EU?
"""I find this interesting, as you have a more or less master-slave partnership with the US, and that weirdly does not bother people at all. (With rather questionable reasoning they even took you into a never-ending war -end even this did not change anything.)
complain about this comment"""
Interesting and indeed the question is clear but really that is not just the case of Britain. I understand the reaction of British people, who in a sense have a right to say that there is no master-slave relationship. Indeed, since it is Britain that created US and it was the British that let it go independent, and it was British that invested there in the late 19th century trying to make everything possible to make Russia (which would almost inevitably rise to first position...) fail. And from WWI up to today there is a complementary relationship. US rules so Britain rules from behind too. One has to have no doubts on that.
However the master-slave relationship has to be said for Europe. There are lots of US bases on EU soil. There is no EU base on US soil. Thus there is a master slave relationship. No doubt on that.
It goes without sayig that EU cannot move on with US bases in it. It is not just a "leftish commentary there"... no. But Russia has not any US bases has it? China not. India not. Brazil not. Countries that want to have an internationally independent role do not carry foreign bases on them. End of story.
Complain about this comment
341. At 00:45am on 29 May 2010, MaudDib wrote:
338. d_t
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ........Winston Churchill
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."........Winston Churchill
I agree with the Bulldog on both counts.
Churchill... the Hitler of Balkans. The mastemind behind the expansion of WWI and WWII in the Balkans and the death of millions. The mind behind the assasination of president Metaxas.
What would he know about democracy? Why would anyone take this monstrous man's saying seriously. I really do not care if for British is a hero. One country's hero, is 10 others' villain. A British installed nomenclature in my country had - of course - Churchill rehabilitated in the local books but at some point the truth about his crimes have to come out. And will never cease to comment as badly as I can whenever the name of this despikable man arrives in a discussion.
"""The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ........Winston Churchill"""
Yeah right old-fat Winston, I guess if I had a five-minute conversation with you would not even survive it. You would be hand-cuffed and put to jail where you would work all your fat out to death.
Complain about this comment
Nik
I don't know if there has been or ever will be a leader who meet the standard set around here. If I wanted to, I could easily make the case that one of our famous presidents, Abraham Lincoln, was a racist despot. I don't believe that to be core of the man, but I could make the case. Does anybody in past or present get a free pass from you. What about Mother Teresa? I find you and d_t are inclined to see the glass half empty. Now Marcus.... the glass is full if it's a Sam Adams brew.
Complain about this comment
@339 WebAliceInWonderLand
You see Alice, you are not alone in you abortive attempt to solve all pressing things at once. I understand your position, at least I try. The prince on the white horse is not there to be in charge of you. Your mum however is present and that is a kind of moral help (mine is still alive at 90!)…
However, I could assure you that the NET could assist all of us to kill the moments of loneliness any time when we really need someone’s presence. I used to have such moments when I was abroad on a very, very long mission…
Welcome back darling, I mean here beyond the English channel, and there, in Russia, among the Smolensk folks.
Obnimayu krepko, krepko. (russ. I embrace you with all the strength I have)
Complain about this comment
@312 Threnodio_II
She's back, after having eaten the moderator. See post nr.339.
Complain about this comment
@310 David
Alice is back friend. See post @339.
Further to your wording, “This Euro thing is so negative and unfair I think and it makes me shudder that people are so concerned about "the morality of the euro" type nonsense.”,
I would just comment that the US dollar had similar problems in the 70’s of the last century, when the Arabic countries used the petrol prices as a political weapon against the US and Israel. Of course the action did not work for a long time, but it did prove that even the reserve currency could experience heavy problems.
The euro will recover, much to the disappointment of the Euro sceptics. Old Europe, no matter the predictions of MarcusAureliusII will remain united under the banner of the European Union. Greece will recover also, but it will take years, much to the pleasure of the Bulgarian distributors of first necessities, beverages, food, medical services, etc. /the prices here are much lower than in Greece, and the compatriots of Nik & Vassilis are omnipresent here, I mean they come shopping here, in any big town, on the south side of the Balkan Range…/
Complain about this comment
'Bases' = 'Master-slave' relationship!?
This is just stuff & nonsense of the poorest sort: Completely lacking any realism & suggests contributors not only brought up on Daffy Duck, but actually living a cartoon existence.
Complain about this comment
Maybe "master/slave" relationship does not hit the nail. There is no such relationship in legal terms but an impression from outside GB is the frequently returning emphasize on some "special relationship" that in a way sheds the light of the great USofA on GB. Sounds obseqious in a way. Just my impression. Why should the USA care about "G"B ?
What does that "special relationship" consist of ? Having fought together on D-day ? The same people deriving a special relationship from this would not hesitate to gossip about the french despite the fact they were brothers in arms too. Where has the special relationship with Fance vanished ?
What's left is the sheer size, economical, military and political power of the USA. Taking this for reason to boast as the little brother suggests an impression of submission.
I will not make friends with this contribution but as everything can be discussed freely here why leave things out.
Complain about this comment
Bluegrasskie
Re #356
Can't really argue with anything You wrote.
None of it implied a 'master & slave' relationship so no need to dispute Your view.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS