How stressful was it?
So how stressful was it?
Seven banks failing the stress test was fewer than many had expected. Some thought the figure would be closer to 10 or 12.
As expected, the heart of the problem lies with Spain's regional savings banks, which were so badly damaged by the collapse in the property market. The five that failed in Spain are deemed too weak to survive another financial shock. They are all in the process of being consolidated.
The cost of shoring up these failed banks is put at 3.5bn euros (£2.9bn; $4.5bn). Analysts had predicted at least 40bn euros would be needed.
So the relief at the outcome is combined with scepticism. "I see nothing stressful about this test," said Stephen Pope of Cantor Fitzgerald. Others felt the tests did not factor in sufficiently the risk from a sovereign debt crisis.
However, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said "in my view the test was tough, it was inclusive and it was very competitive".
Over the weekend and before the markets re-open, there will be further analysis of these results. There may still be uncertainty in early trading next week.
It is still too early to declare Europe's banking system sound enough to survive further shocks to the European economy, but a significant hurdle was passed today.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~28~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
that was NOT a significant hurdle. It was tantamount to cheating in your school exams.
Complain about this comment
This is the only outcome that was possible. Anything else would have doomed European banking. They will justify it later by saying it was in the best interest of everyone and it may be, but it was dishonesty that caused the crisis and it is difficult to think that dishonesty will help in getting out. Not being a banker or politician I am unpractied in the ways of lying and see it as a less favorable art.
Complain about this comment
"However, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said "in my view the test was tough"
Surprise suprise, what did anyone think she was going to say, the EU lied? Does anyone expect a test tough enough for majore banks like BNP to fail?j The European banks are doomed anyway, this just tries to cover it up until the bomb goes off. In the last thread I reported that a PBS report said that the exposure of Spains Cajas is two times Spain's GDP. When a significant percentage of the mortgages fail (which could be precipitated by a rise in iterest rates since many of them are ARMs) the banks will look much worse. Then if the government bails out the banks, it will become a sovereign debt crisis for the ninth largest economy in the world. I don't have the facts but I have a sneaking suspicion the banks and the governments are not telling us the entire truth. Now why do you suppose I feel that way?
Complain about this comment
Just as true to reality as the American stress-test.
However they have closed 100´s of banks since their test and still 100´s to follow !
Complain about this comment
#3 marcus
Because you are an American and have daily experience.
Complain about this comment
No noisy little acorn, because I follow the markets and listen to what ALL of the financial and economic experts I can find have to say and because I am not a Eurpean who is accostomed to lying to make things appear far better than they really are. I make no apologies for anything or anyone whether it is American or not. That includes you stumpy. I won't apologize for you because I can't and you won't apologize for yourself because you don't understand why that would be the right thing to do so we will leave it the way it is.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to read the comments in the financial press and people on here on the stressfulness of the tests. It is intriguing that in most comments the stress test is compared to the US bank stress test from last year, but no one seems to take the trouble to actually compare the two. Well, surprise surprise, this stress test was a lot more significant than the US bank stress test.
For instance looking at economic growth, the US stress test only looked at 3.3% economic decline in 2009 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123557705225772665.html). The European stress test looked at 3% economic decline in 2010 AND 3% in 2011, on top of 4% in 2009. Clearly the European stress test is way more significant. On top of that, I doubt that the US stresstest looked at financially troubling state finances, whereas the European bank stresstest did.
So reporters as well as commentators here may want to do a bit of research before making commments on these matters.
Complain about this comment
#3 - MarcusAureliusII
"Now why do you suppose I feel that way?"
Because you are a prejudiced old bigot indulging in wishful thinking about the demise of Europe.
However, just for once, you are right. The stress tests were an exercise in futility. Had hundreds of them failed, it would have provoked a crisis. By failing a handful, they are wide open to the charge that the criteria were way too soft. In short, a complete waste of time and effort.
But it was you guys who wanted it and where did your stress tests get you?
Complain about this comment
So that is the Stress Test over - not very stressful at all it would seem.
The Reality Tests comes along on Monday when the Financial Sector Traders reach their desks and start to put the real pressure on the Euro that these Stress Tests simply delayed.
One has to almost laugh at the almost childlike mentality of the Eurozone politicians who will do anything and say anything to prop up the Euro when any fool can see that Greece is heading down the tubes and WILL eventually default and that the Greek sovereign debt is owed mainly to the German Banks and it is Germany that will bear the brunt of the Greek Default when it happens.
Suggesting the banks are able to withstand a minor tremor in the event of a double-dip recession is nothing in comparison to the Tsunami that will hit the Banks when Greece has to default and restructure its sovereign debt.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
How predictable this all is. The people wanting us to believe that the Euro is doomed are disappointed, and so are telling us that the stress test is of no use, and that bankers and politicians cannot be believed anyway. So why should we believe anybody? A bit more than six weeks ago MA-II was arguing about the Euro sinking as low as 1.17 US dollar, now the Euro trades for 1.29 US dollar. If a real expert like that gets so confused about this, why not think that skeptics about stress tests have it all wrong, also.
Complain about this comment
So how stressful was it?
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
Goldman Sachs was one company that had projected stress failures up around 10 - 12. This tickled my funnybone, considering that it was Goldman Sachs that helped Greece to play hanky-panky with its sovereign debt. (I wonder how many other countries Goldman Sachs got to play hanky-panky.)
Wait til early trading next week, and we'll get a better feeling for what's what.
"It is still too early to declare Europe's banking system sound enough to survive further shocks to the European economy, but a significant hurdle was passed today."
What do you think? Do you think that the United States could survive further shocks to the American economy - like perhaps a downgrading to its credit rating?
Complain about this comment
threnodious;
"#3 - MarcusAureliusII
"Now why do you suppose I feel that way?"
Because you are a prejudiced old bigot indulging in wishful thinking about the demise of Europe."
Oh I forgot, European governments never tell lies. Only the American government does.
Complain about this comment
It is my understanding that information used in the test is posted on the Internet. Does anyone know the address?
Supposedly one of the facts one can link to is the exposure of each bank to Greece's sovereign debt. Now, if you think that a 50% haircut is in the offing then you can make your own stress test.
I think this is more of a concern than the chance of a double-dip.
Complain about this comment
Nevermind, I think I found it.
www.c-ebs.org/
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
burptime;
"Thanks MA, I see you have no problem with being a "prejudiced old bigot" (retired school teacher, most likely). Kudus to you, you do accept who you are!"
Yes I accept who I am, someone who is not burdened by the shackles of the European mentality. I've never made any secret of the fact that I detest practically everything about Europe. And I did live there for almost two years so I know it first hand and no I was not treated badly or abused. Nor did I suffer in any way during my time there (except for that one minor but revealing incident at the indsutrial trade fair I've related several times.) I simply reject everything about Europe.
No I'm not a retired schoolteacher, I'm a working engineer. I'm also glad I am not shackled by the thinking process European engineers are constrained by either. That's another thing for me to be grateful for.
Complain about this comment
How stressful was it?
For banks and bankers - very.
But now most of them feel greately relieved.
Complain about this comment
Mr Hewitt asks, 'How stressful was it?'
Well, there are a few basics we do know a UK/EUropean Banker may have considered during the imaginary 'tests':
1) Did I run a multi-national business so recklessly and greedily I was one of a group that almost Bankrupted most of UK/EUrope & the World's Economy?
Answer: Yes.
2) Did I mis-manage that Global business so appallingly badly it needed billions in loans of Tax-Payers Monies in order to continue functioning?
Answer: Yes.
3) Did my extreme avaricious actions put millions of people out of work and cause untold hardship?
Answer: Yes.
4) Did my gross abuse of a privileged position in business end up with multi-millions of ordinary people paying for it over many years ahead?
Answer: Yes.
5) Do I still run that business or another exactly like it & am I still incredibly wealthy compared to all norms of society?
Answer: Yes.
6) Did I or do I expect to face any sort of punitive action against me for my wilful disregard of basic business principles and wholly negligent attitude to everyone else in UK/EUrope and the World?
Answer: No.
PHEW!
That was some 'test' - - I'm soooooooooooo relieved it's over - - it must be true: They are ALL TOTAL MUGS out there among the common people!
Now, where is my chauffuer driven limousine, I'm late for the 5* gourmet luncheon, and why are those silly oiks crying outside my exclusive apartment block - - as if I've anything to regret!?
What do You think, Mr Hewitt - - did a UK/EUropean Banker lose any sleep these last few weeks?
I'm hazarding a guess that when they failed to get the putt on the golf green in the 'charity' foursome it made more of a ripple in their heart than anything else these last 2 years or more!
Complain about this comment
hewitt:
"It is still too early to declare Europe's banking system sound enough to survive further shocks to the European economy, but a significant hurdle was passed today."
This is a very strange way to see the world.
If there is one thing of which we can all be absolutely certain, it is that "Europe's banking system" and the folks who own it will survive any market turmoil.
They will be standing even if riots and race hatred blight the continent, and even if every third worker is completely destitute. That banking system will be standing proud if the farms stop producing and the fuel stops flowing.
Nothing can hurt the European banking system. Politicians and the public alike desperately seek to endure, but not the European banking system. It will endure effortlessly.
We all know this to be true, given the way representative "democracy" operates in Europe. What the bankers want, the bankers get. Nothing is more important than that the bankers are obeyed and kept in the manner to which they have been accustomed. Hewitt even reports that the 5 weak banks in spain have already been set down for "consolidation", which presumably means that vast sums of public money will be gifted to them. "For the sake of the overall economy".
CBW makes the point that by every possible standard the owners of the banks in Europe have failed. They have failed morally, practically, financially and theoretically. But CBW also points out that none of these people face hardship. They are all still incredibly wealthy compared to social norms. So they must have succeeded politically. Like Stalin or Mao, you can say what you like about the bankers policies, but you can't argue the claim that they did all right for themselves.
It will all come out OK for the bankers. They are not spending their own money, after all. We need not fear for them, they will continue to do fine.
Complain about this comment
Love to see the special relationship MA enjoys with his European cousins - can't live with them - can't live without them. A reflection of the current mutual trans-atlantic distrust that is growing at the moment?
And #19 CBW - I choose your view of the banking world this morning - feel better already! Don't worry though, they'll be first against....
The global effort being expended in the analysis of our monetary and financial state is preposterous. Just wake up and smell the stuff that's just under our chins. If the same effort were mobilised into wealth creation (whatever that is) it might do some good.
Complain about this comment
The exercise as I understand it was to estimate how many and which banks might be in trouble in the event of a double dip recession. The problem is that the tests actually increase the possibility. Dave Francis at #21 is quite right. We need wealth creation back in the system by stimulating growth. Since austerity has taken over as the flavour of the year, there is little prospect that governments will do this. We therefore need the banks to start lending again and if they are having to retain significant funds to ensure their own liquidity, they won't have a great deal to lend. Forcing them to back away from high risk investment is one thing. Making them hoard capital is another.
Complain about this comment
#22. At 11:37am on 24 Jul 2010, threnodio_II,
"Forcing them to back away from high risk investment is one thing. Making them hoard capital is another."
This comment of yours basically sums up the problem, they should not have been in the high risk business in the first place as they got carried away with their own self importance, now they have to go back to basics and start being true banks once more. Which means offering savings schemes for savers and lending money to people and business. One thing I am sure has been said but I've not noticed it is that the amount of liquidity a bank must now have should depend on the type of operation it has. If it is in the high risk category then it should have large reserves, if it is not then the reserves need to be a lot less.
It is unfortunate that in the EU there is always a 'one size fits all' thinking and therefore no distinction is made between the various types of banks, plus it seems to be being said that consolidation somehow solves a small banks problems. If one looks at the past crisis it was the big consolidated banks who grew too big for their own good that caused these problems, as they became ambitious empire builders to whom the ordinary customer was a nuisance since they generated less profit than the high risk investments (in theory).
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurellius
A WORKING engineer ?
Your blogging time contributions suggest either a deviation from the truth.
-- or you should be fired !
Complain about this comment
There has to have been a very good reason why the results of the European Bank Stress Tests were not revealed until after 5pm GMT on Friday when the global financial markets had closed for the weekend.
In my view, I believe the purpose of the exercise was not simply to stress test the 91 Banks to see if they would/could cope with a double-dip recession. It is my opinion that the project was more a case of the Stress Tests being politically and deliberately solely constrained to testing whether the banks could withstand a double-dip recession as the tests, if more robust would have exposed more serious problems within the European Banking Sector.
The Stress Tests would seem to suggest the banks have consolidated their positions so that they can withstand a double-dip recession the tests were successful. To that end, the banks have passed the tests with flying colours ... the problem will come Monday when the financial markets will express their view as to whether the Stress Tests were objective enough, robust enough or simply political shenanigans.
Because the Stress Tests were intended by politicians to placate the investors, the speculators and the banks (who are exposed to tremendous borrowing and debt amongst themselves) and there is still an enormous risk that Greece will default upon its sovereign debt - that debt being humungous - and many of the European Banks are likely to fail if the Greek Government does decide to default and seek restructuring of its total sovereign debts, the Stress Test are likely to be considered deliberately false or misleading by the global financial markets come Monday.
The failure of the Stress Tests to be more stressful upon the banks will lead to a risk that the speculators, who currently threaten the continuance of the Euro "as is", voting with their money that the Euro remains weak thus undoing the reassurance that the EU politicians sought to give the financial markets.
In the autumn of 2008 the British Banks received massive injections of tax-payers funding to allow the British Banks from collapsing under the weight of the USA Sub-Prime Mortgage exposure to which the British Banks had 'unwittingly' (I jest!) exposed themselves.
Many of the European banking institutions were relatively lucky in that their exposure to the USA debt was seemingly less impact.
The problem is that the double-dip recession is not going to be a follow on from the USA toxic debt impact so much as the European government have for many years been spending way beyond their GNP income funding social welfare and services that Europeans have become reliant if not indeed expectant. The Europeans simply cannot go on living beyond their means and, as much as the politicians might hope that Europe can have economic growth, to trade themselves out of the hole they find themselves in, economic growth across Europe could remain stagnant for years if not even double-dip into recession sooner rather than later.
The realisation that the PIIGS nations have funded their economic benefits through debt and not productivity was fully exposed by the Greeks admitting that previous Greek governments have "cooked the books" and their GNP was way below that capable of funding their then borrowings was the straw that broke the camels back and started the Greeks on a road to eventual default as no one with any sense believes that the Greek Economy can grow enough to fund its current debts and interest payments and, eventually, either there will be need for further massive Eurozone funding or Greece must seek to restructure its sovereign debt.
One must not forget that the Eurozone Bailout Fund has already been drawn down by the Greeks and there is little left in the pot should a second PIIGS economy go bottoms-up. The speculators seem to be looking at Spain being the next most likely Eurozone nation to be at risk of reneging upon its debt and interest payments.
The Stress Test should have tested the European Banks for risk if either Greece or Spain default and even, perhaps tested their ability to withstand the situation of both Greece and Spain defaulting.
Unless the risk of sovereign debt within the Eurozone is eliminated the speculators will simply keep expecting that the default will occur sooner or later and the Euro remain a currency at risk of failure.
The current Stress Test simply failed to address this possibility and, in that respect if for no other reason, the reality test on Monday will see further stress laid upon the Euro and any banks that have funded the Eurozone-wide sovereign debts.
Complain about this comment
OK, y'all, I'm a millionaire. I just did a 'stress test' and yes I am a millionaire now. Only problem is: I did the test myself and rigged the result.
And why do these politicians (the same who betrayed our democracies to the EU, by the way) always care about those banks so much? We really need to stop believing the illusion that banks are somehow indispensible. And the concept of a 'corporation' needs to be abolished, permanently.
Complain about this comment
#26. At 7:53pm on 24 Jul 2010, mvr512,
"And why do these politicians (the same who betrayed our democracies to the EU, by the way) always care about those banks so much?"
It's not really that difficult to understand, where do you think they've put the money they've milked from us, some is for sure in offshore havens but they've been clamping down on those so maybe they've shot themselves in the foot. One thing is for certain if the mandarins have their wealth in the banks then they will be defending them at our cost no matter what.
Complain about this comment
#25 Menedemus
´That Europeans simply cannot go on living beyond their means--´
The next American budget sees it borrowing 41 cents for EVERY dollar it spends.
Europe has Social Benefits that go directly into the economy as a continual stimulus. Some can and should be reduced --others NEVER !
Both American and British governments (since Thatcher) have destroyed the wisdoms and laws regulating Banking, Insurance, Commodity Trading etc. --down to even names such as ´HEDGE FUNDS ´ and ´Creative Book-Keeping´, which were ADOPTED by Mainland Europe.
The sooner it is realized by ALL that Capitalism and NOT Social Benefits is the main culprit for this mess, perhaps another catastrophe can be prevented.
But first, the citizen victims MUST be helped --American or European !
Complain about this comment
#28. At 8:26pm on 24 Jul 2010, quietoaktree,
"The sooner it is realized by ALL that Capitalism and NOT Social Benefits is the main culprit for this mess, perhaps another catastrophe can be prevented."
Just how do you think the Communists and Socialists that created the Social Benefits were able to build their wealth at our cost, throw a few crumbs to the dumbed down masses and milk them to the hilt, eh!
The Social Benefits will never be sufficient since once the masses are comfortable they don't tend to vote Socialist, it is not in the interest of centre left party's to help the poor, end of story.
Unfortunately they, the mandarins, as always, got too greedy and their investments have crashed as many so called former communists and EU mandarins have found out. So what exactly is Capitalism as most Socialist politicians seem very happy to make fortunes at our expense.
Complain about this comment
"The sooner it is realized by ALL that Capitalism and NOT Social Benefits is the main culprit for this mess, perhaps another catastrophe can be prevented."
CAPITALISMM CAN AT LEAST PRODUCE CAPITAL -SOCIALISM ONLY POVERTY AND MISERY
[Oh, and of course - "Das Kapital"]
Complain about this comment
#29 Buzet 23
How many crumbs are you presently getting or have you inherited and have no need ?
Look around USA or UK and blame the needy for the World Financial Meltdown ?
--- or are YOU laughing all the way to the Bank ?
So which Social Benefits would you NOT remove ??????
Complain about this comment
#30 Powermeerkat
America, Britain and Norway have oil --tell that to the Norwegians.
See #31 and we can discuss your further brainstorming on social responsibility --or should citizens be seen only as cannon fodder?
Complain about this comment
#31. At 9:17pm on 24 Jul 2010, quietoaktree,
Try reading what I said for once as it's mostly your beloved Socialists that are milking us, and inheritance is a dream that few enjoy as the politicians have milked the pittance that most, including my family, managed to put by despite all the high taxes. As for laughing to the bank, well I've already said that it's your favourite left of centre politicians that have been doing that until they screwed up the finances of the world with their greediness.
As for "So which Social Benefits would you NOT remove ??????" it would be simpler to restart from the basics when it concerns the UK. Life is somewhat harder on the few benefits that are available on the continent as mostly it is 'unemployment' plus a few discounts and rebates. You certainly don't get furniture, housing and many other benefits. I can easily detail life on the 'chomage', CPAS etc in Belgium since about 20% of the working population where I live are reliant on it and it is not generous especially for the below 50's.
Complain about this comment
#33 Buzet23
Sorry, the parasitic poor, the infirm, the unemployed, families with children etc, etc have destroyed the worlds economy.
Happy ?
Complain about this comment
Heh, I think it's quite ironic, Buzet would get on splendidly with Bart De Wever & the N-VA militants.
I'll say it again, if you want to blame politicians, Reagan and Thatcher are responsible for the current economic crisis, not the 'socialists'. It's incredible how many people blame the socialists for everything, even in countries where they aren't in power. It's true that the current generation of 'democratic socialist parties' haven't done much to help solve the problem, and have in fact in some cases screwed us over quite a bit, but the 'third way' has done little else but consolidate things that already passed.
Complain about this comment
People should read an article on Yahoo's front page today .
Why The Middle Class (in America) is Radically Shrinking .
The EU is doing just the same with the same results .
Globalism , has been , is a grave mistake .
We are ruining our lives for wanting more , better , safer , so many rules and regulations that make the cost of living prohibitively high .
Poverty is a state of mind , poverty is relative , poverty is ignorance . People need to rethink their lives , to go back and start again .
I live in a rural village of a developing ( Third world ) country where people are REALLY POOR ; yet most have clean clothes to put on , some rice to eat and a corrugated iron roof over their heads . People work hard for little return and don't have great expectations in life .
In the west we take everything for granted and expect even more that we can't afford . in the comments somebody referes to all the clever politicians , the problem is that they are not clever ; if they were they wouldn't be in politics .
Complain about this comment
Movements of millions of users of iPhone are getting recorded by the cell phone and transferred to Apple, the company has now admitted in an answer to two members of the congress of USA.
According to the contract the users have signed before they start using the phone Apple can do this. The iPhone maker is selling this information to other companies and thus making the owners of the phone a target of individualised marketing.
In a number of European countries where the phone is being sold, This monitoring of movements and private life of citizens is illegal. Apple says the monitoring of the user of the phone is covered by Californian legislation, which makes it legal.
It is a matter of data ethics and protection of the private life and the case has already activated politicians, media and date protection authorities. Everybody expects Apple to defend its commercial interests, and just like the case of Microsoft it might be difficult for individual countries to win against Apple.
To protect the private life of the EU citizen some politicians therefore propose a European ombudsman. In any case, the right thing is to deal with the matter on the level of EU, that is to activate the commission in Bruxelles in the matter.
Complain about this comment
"In any case, the right thing is to deal with the matter on the level of EU, that is to activate the commission in Bruxelles in the matter."
Yet another unelected EU body controlling lives of EU subjects?
Sure, that would do the trick.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
38. At 07:17am on 25 Jul 2010, powermeerkat
The EU commission is not another EU body. It is an existing EU body.
I suppose you remark is just a slip of the pen. This other possibility is alarming.
An ombudsman is a well-known institution in many European countries, so I don't have to tell my fellow-Europeans what the system function is. Judging from your mistaken account USA does not have such an institution.
Complain about this comment
#35. At 10:48pm on 24 Jul 2010, Leo_Naphta wrote:
"Heh, I think it's quite ironic, Buzet would get on splendidly with Bart De Wever & the N-VA militants."
As a Flemish and by the law of averages one quarter of your own family voted for the N-VA or Vlaams Belang this June, so you must be well acquainted with militants, pot kettle black?
Complain about this comment
#35. At 10:48pm on 24 Jul 2010, Leo_Naphta, and QOT,
"I'll say it again, if you want to blame politicians, Reagan and Thatcher are responsible for the current economic crisis, not the 'socialists'.",
Both have been out of power for twenty years now so they must be remarkable people to have created the sub prime problem and Reagan must have done it from beyond the grave, what a story, rofl.
Complain about this comment
#34. At 10:10pm on 24 Jul 2010, quietoaktree,
I blame the cows with their burping of methane gas.
Happy?
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat
The EU commission is not another EU body. It is an existing EU body.
I suppose you remark is just a slip of the pen. This other possibility is alarming.
Even more so 'activating' 'sleepers'.
["if somebody meets a body catching in the rye"]
Complain about this comment
Re #40
'An ombudsman is a well-known institution in many European countries, so I don't have to tell my fellow-Europeans what the system function is. Judging from your mistaken account USA does not have such an institution.'
Nope. We only have Human Rights Watch and Better Business Bureau. ;(
Complain about this comment
"As a Flemish and by the law of averages one quarter of your own family voted for the N-VA"
And I erroneously thought one could only LIVE in N-VA. :)
Complain about this comment
Buzet "I blame the cows with their burping of methane gas.
Happy?"
Nope: you forgot about EU sheep.
Complain about this comment
I have made the point before but it bears repetition in this context. If the income that was paid in the form of social contributions (in the UK, NI contributions) had been ring fenced in the first place, we would not be having this debate because social programs would have been self financing.
Those who post here that 'socialism is not affordable' are on the wrong track. It is not affordable for the simple reason that most western countries put this income in the general taxation pot and proceeded to spend it on purposes for which it was not intended. In this respect, finance ministers of the past have been as least as irresponsible as the bankers and financial speculators it is currently fashionable to lambaste.
Complain about this comment
Buzet,
They created, with the de-regulation they started the conditions for banks to get into the areas that spread to form the bubbles that created the sub-prime crisis. As I said IF you want to blame politicians, you'll have to go with the neo-liberal ideological wing, not the socialists.
And yes, I have family that voted N-VA. Not particulary the family I get along with all that well, and I have serious problems with Bart De Wever and the N-VA as an historian, it upsets me, the way they abuse history.
That wasn't my point though, though you've confirmed the irony. You hear N-VA and you think flemish nationalism and all that jazz, but that's hardly what they're about - even if they manage to burry it a bit - they're also quite neo-liberal & conservative in their social doctrines. He's a big admirer of Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple), which is why I mentioned you'd probably get along with them if you put aside the flemish 'nationalist' doctrine. Which is what makes the current formation period so difficult. The PS, for the N-VA, is the main source of problems for Wallonia, and the left is responsible for societies 'degradation'. ;)
Complain about this comment
#42 and #43 Buzet23
Obviously you are too young to remember both the discussion and practice at the time of Thatcher and Reagan, which still affect us.
The rules of the game set up after the Depression and WW11 were changed by them. Thats why we have the concepts of REAGANISM and THATCHERISM.
My #28 is not at all Earth shattering if you read it properly. (unless one gets a ´High ´from cud chewing and flatulence)
Those who received Social Benefits DID NOT destroy the world economy ---IS CONTROVERSIAL ????
Complain about this comment
Re #49 they're also quite neo-liberal & conservative in their social doctrines."
Perhaps you could it explain it?
For in the US at least 'neo-liberal conservative' in an oxymoron.
[contradictio in adiecto, if you will]
Complain about this comment
#48. At 08:40am on 25 Jul 2010, threnodio_II,
The Social contributions and Socialism are two totally different things that should not be confused. I remember that in Germany there were three different social contributions, health care, unemployment benefits and pensions. Whilst in the UK the NHI contribution covers all three and is lumped in with general taxation, but as we all know the NHS is receiving an inordinate amount of the money for what are poor results, and I have never held the front line medical staff in any way responsible for this. I saw at first hand in 1976/7 the endemic waste and bad practice in the administration side and since then and recently with New Labour that has got far worse with thousands more administration workers and management consultants. If the NHI was not such a 'holy cow' then money would be available for social projects, but until the inherent phenomenally expensive bureaucracy of the NHS is removed social projects will suffer.
Complain about this comment
# 51
Yes, but the US uses the term liberal differently from the rest of the world. To quote the first few lines of the wikipedia article:
"Neoliberalism is a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state."
In truth, they should be neo-neo-liberals, but '50s use of the term neo-liberalism has been quite forgotten, so that's more of an interesting anekdote than anything else. For some reason, the conversation in the USA has decided to use the terminology completely different to the rest of the world, so it might get a bit confusing like that. Also, N-VA: New Flemish Alliance, if you want to look up what they stand for. At this moment, the 'biggest' party in the Belgian parliament.
Complain about this comment
#50. At 08:46am on 25 Jul 2010, quietoaktree,
What flattery, I love being told I don't look in my sixties, I was very interested in politics during the Wilson era and well remember his style of politics and how we had to hold out the begging bowl to the IMF, do you? I also recall that he did not exactly follow the rules of the game that McMillan used and that he created the financial mess that resulted in devaluation, strikes, and social strife. The advent of Thatcherism was a direct result of Wilson's mess as it needed pretty drastic action to recover from being the sick man of Europe, have you forgotten that or is it you that's too young to have experienced it.
Complain about this comment
#52 Buzet23
If Social contributions (therefore Benefits) and Socialism are NOW two totally different things why did you waste our time with #29 and#33 ?
To accuse you of confusion ---is a compliment !
Complain about this comment
#51. At 08:54am on 25 Jul 2010, powermeerkat,
#53. At 09:05am on 25 Jul 2010, Leo_Naphta,
This is a better description of neoliberalism I suspect :-
There are two principal meanings of the term neoliberalism. The first refers to a set of market-liberal economic policies. In the developed world neoliberalism is often coupled with Thatcherism and grew up in opposition to Keynesianism. In the developing world it emerged in opposition to the development strategies based on import-substitution industrialization which had dominated the period 1945 to the early 1980s. Here it is often linked to the so-called ‘Washington Consensus’ (privatization and deregulation; trade and financial liberalization; shrinking the role of the state; encouraging foreign direct investment) and to the structural adjustment programmes promoted by the IMF and World Bank. More recently, it has been used (for example by the anti-globalization movement) to characterize the economic ideology behind capitalist globalization. Whilst all of these usages are related, the economic use of the term neoliberalism is somewhat general and imprecise.
The second use of the term is within academic International Relations. Here it describes a theoretical approach to the study of institutions (sometimes described as neoliberal institutionalism or regime theory). Developed in the mid-1980s as a reaction to the dominant neorealist paradigm, neoliberal institutionalism sought to demonstrate that international cooperation is possible, even on realist premisses—namely that states are rational, unitary actors which seek to maximize their utility in an anarchic international system. Although recognizing that the absence of a sovereign authority at the international level creates opportunities for conflict, defection, and cheating, neoliberals argue that institutions and regimes help states cooperate by reducing uncertainty, linking issues, monitoring behaviour, and enhancing the importance of reputation. These arguments are countered by neorealist theorists who stress the importance of relative rather than absolute gains and the extent to which powerful states can shape institutions for their own purposes and avoid them when they are too constraining.
— Andrew Hurrell/Laura Gomez-Mera
Buzet23 - Or to put it another way, it is one of those throw away terms that people throw into conversations that can mean anything and/or nothing.
Complain about this comment
#37 Mathiasen
Despite my ´Block Cookies´ and removing, a Google cookie ALWAYS RETURNS on my Apple Mac a few minutes later.
Complain about this comment
#52 - Buzet23
I have no argument with your case about excessive administration in the NHS. I completely agree. My point is simply that there has been financial mismanagement on a massive scale. The notion that the UK can afford a multi-billion pound upgrade for an outdated weapons system but can no long afford to run the welfare state is frankly laughable.
Complain about this comment
"Buzet23 - Or to put it another way, it is one of those throw away terms that people throw into conversations that can mean anything and/or nothing."
Well, you could say that about any term that covers a broad spectrum. You could say that about the term 'socialism', the term 'communism', the term 'conservatism', the term 'liberal', the term 'progressive', the term 'republican'.
In the end though, they all point towards a general philosophical system, and neo-liberalism points towards a system that takes as premise 'classical liberalism' in economics, and maximizes the role of the private actor in the economy, while minimizing the role of the state in the economy.
Of course you can argue that everything can many things to many different people. Just as there's no consensus amongst Thatcherites what 'Thatcherism' is. Nor amongst Trotskists about what Trotskism is ... or indeed, Catholics about what Catholicism is. ;) However, if we're going to debate like this, we're going to have to start to footnote every term we use, and provide the exact meaning we are aiming at with every usage. In which case, I don't want to see you use the word socialism anymore, without explaining exactly what you understand under it. ;)
Complain about this comment
#55. At 09:20am on 25 Jul 2010, quietoaktree wrote:
"#52 Buzet23
If Social contributions (therefore Benefits) and Socialism are NOW two totally different things why did you waste our time with #29 and#33 ?
To accuse you of confusion ---is a compliment !"
It's really quite pointless talking to you if you misinterpret everything, so if you don't understand that Socialism is quite separate from Social contributions just give up.
Despite that let me give you a hint, the UK's contributions are called what? National Insurance, and like any Insurance it covers you for certain things and there are many things it does not cover you for. That is where Socialism steps in and where it claims to be the best, but the liberal and conservative party's also support various degrees of social policy to complement the insurance. Now, have I explained it in such simplistic terms that even you can understand?
Complain about this comment
#59. At 09:49am on 25 Jul 2010, Leo_Naphta,
You're quite right of course but then is that not what debating is all about, the twisting and manipulation of what the other says to try and enhance an opinion you support. What tends to be confusing though is the use of buzz words like neoliberalism that have multiple meanings and when conjoined with other buzz words seem to make a sentence that looks intelligent but means nothing. I used to have a buzz word generator (on card) that had four columns of words, you could combine one word from each column to make a seemingly intelligent expression, and these were used in prospectuses for sales in the IT industry.
Complain about this comment
If National Insurance revenue was ring-fenced the income would still not be enough to fund the current costs of the social benefits for which National Insurance was originally intended, i.e. the National Health Service, Pensions and welfare benefits such as Unemployment Benefit (now nominally renamed Job Seekers Allowance).
National Insurance was created to fund the then innovative British Welfare Society but the costs of funding the Welfare Society of Britain has grown disproportional to the revenue generated through NI thus general taxation has come to be the main resource for government's means to continue to fund the British Welfare Provisions.
When I write that the UK cannot any longer afford to live beyond its means I mean (quite intentionally)that where the UK government revenue is 3/4 Tax and other assets income but 1/4 is borrowed then the UK cannot, any longer, profess to be being able to afford its current Welfare Provisions.
The question has been asked as to which welfare or social provisions need to be cut but the simple truth is that tax, be it general taxation or top-up tax (such as National Insurance) does not produce sufficient revenues to afford the current levels of UK welfare provision to which the UK Citizens have grown accustomed if not expectant. Cuts there must be and exactly what gets trimmed, cut or eliminated as waste is not something that any one person can decide but the British will have to accept.
Banks and Financiers are blamed for causing the cuts but something had to change as it has been entirely the fault of politicians that the UK Welfare Society was allowed to grow and the Global Credit Crisis generated Recession is merely the plausible excuse/cover for cuts that were inevitable going to have to happen sooner or later.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"Movements of millions of users of iPhone are getting recorded by the cell phone and transferred to Apple, the company has now admitted in an answer to two members of the congress of USA.
According to the contract the users have signed before they start using the phone Apple can do this. The iPhone maker is selling this information to other companies and thus making the owners of the phone a target of individualised marketing.
In a number of European countries where the phone is being sold, This monitoring of movements and private life of citizens is illegal. Apple says the monitoring of the user of the phone is covered by Californian legislation, which makes it legal.
It is a matter of data ethics and protection of the private life and the case has already activated politicians, media and date protection authorities. Everybody expects Apple to defend its commercial interests, and just like the case of Microsoft it might be difficult for individual countries to win against Apple.
To protect the private life of the EU citizen some politicians therefore propose a European ombudsman. In any case, the right thing is to deal with the matter on the level of EU, that is to activate the commission in Bruxelles in the matter."
Firstly, the issue here is the monitoring of the device, not the user. Sure, Apple want to monitor the user but they can't, so they monitor the device. I make the distinction because when the state wishes to monitor a person, they monitor the person. They are not limited to finding novel ways to do it. They tap phones, intercept emails, assign secret police to spy and keep files, and so on and so forth.
Most legal discussions of civil privacy end with the advice that you have no privacy, so get used to it. This is because the laws needed to protect the wildly fluctuating levels of privacy for citizens are practically absurd, and would create havoc if they were implemented.
The trick to understanding why privacy is a dead issue, legally speaking, is to understand that each individual wants two contradictory things at once. We all want to keep our secrets, but just the same we don't like secrets being kept from us. So we want our privacy, but we also want to know what is going on.
This double standard of expectations is best summarized by the maxim that thieves have the biggest locks. The more someone squeals about the sacred right to privacy, the more you can be certain that they spend their lives prying into other people's business, and snooping where they do not belong according to common standards of civilized behaviour. The reverse is also true. Most folks who are easy going and who don't feel they have anything to hide generally also respect the dignity of others and do not pry into private affairs.
What that creates for the legal representative is the knowledge that if someone comes complaining about a privacy issue, you need to be very careful. You are almost certainly dealing with a crank of low character. Hence the advice, you have no privacy, get used to it and get over yourself.
And as Oscar Wilde is said to have said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Most folks have hugely misguided ideas about how valuable and interesting their private information is to others. The demand for privacy is oftentimes an egotistical plea for attention. It is one way of saying "My life is important.".
So when dealing with the issue of legislation to enshrine privacy, these factors need to be taken into account. What are the laws supposed to do? Do they simply make people feel more important than they are? Well that might be a nice thing in theory, but at what cost do we pursue such policy aims? Do we set up a police department with the power to arrest people who ask to many questions? Because if you want to look at the bottom line, that is where you end up. If you are serious about protecting the individuals right to privacy, you are talking about limiting the individuals freedom to enquire. Those who advocate government agencies to protect privacy always avoid that hard truth, and pretend it doesn't exist. Take Mathiesan as a perfect case study. He is falling over himself in his hurry to establish a central department in Brussels. He doesn't understand much about the issue at all, but he already knows that he wants more government employees with more power, policing everyone else. And of course that is exactly thew sort of person you attract when you set up such institutions. Only the power hungry and the crusaders want to work in that kind of secret police organization. They want to wear the uniform with the eagles on the sleeves and they want to stand tall whilst they point the finger and utter commands of one syllable to the adoring crowds of onlookers.
But what is the impact of creating laws which limit enquiry?
What does that do to the institution of journalism, that poor public creature which already struggles under the weight of numerous absurd laws?
And do we have any faith whatsoever that these privacy laws will actually be used to protect our dignity and rights?
Look at the way information pertaining to file sharing is treated. Large corporations and government departments in their sway are already spying on folks and invading their homes. And the governments' response to that? They take the side of the large corporations. Of course. Sharing is illegal, and if the corporation invades your home to catch you, well the government will take their side as a matter of course. This is the same government which will theoretically save your soul by protecting your right to privacy.
So you have to be a bit innocent to believe that creating a government department is going to help. The idea that governments are the best protectors of individual rights and information is a bold proposition, at best.
In the end, people have a duty to themselves to keep their private information private, as best they can.
If the government is to have privacy laws, these are best stated in the constitution so that the courts can adjudicate matters,and so that popular governments cannot create bogus "save your soul" departments of secret police/priests that end up doing the exact opposite of protecting civil rights.
Switzerland is a good example. File sharing is rife in this country, because of constitutional privacy laws. Corporations here dare not even mention that they know file sharing goes on, because the moment they did so the police would be arresting the CEO's and jail time would result. The Swiss are very, very strict about privacy laws and the separation of the individual and the state. If a corporation made an accusation about file sharing, the only focus of the law would be the breach of privacy laws, because that is by far the more serious issue.
And so, in a way you know that your rights to privacy are not the issue in the system of representation found in the free west. If you really had any privacy, the government would not have access to your bank account records, to check you tax return.
Until you get that privacy, you can rest assured that the government and its sponsors will grant you the gift of privacy "with just a few exceptions". And the list of those exceptions will be a closed list, "with just a few exceptions". And the circumstances where the government can open the list of reasons to renege on your right to privacy would be impossible to define, because it would be based ultimately on "policy considerations".
So you have no privacy. Get used to it. Until your relationship with the state becomes civil via the constitution of your nation, and until your civil rights versus the government are protected by a judiciary upholding such a constitution, privacy is an empty promise made by a party member who wants to employ more secret police with greater powers.
Complain about this comment
# 61, Buzet:
... and what are you trying to hint at? That I was trying to make myself seem more intelligent by using the term 'neo-liberal' in this phrase:
"they're also quite neo-liberal & conservative in their social doctrines."
... really?
It just denotes that the N-VA, in the economic & social doctrine - you know, how they view the action of the state in the economy, has a neo-liberal outlook. As in, they want less regulations and government intervention, more privatization, they're against the unions and they think the welfare state undermines the workings of the free market. -_- Y'know, boot-strappy sort of people. Conservative in their social doctrine, as Bart de Wever has always stated his support for Edmund Burke (although he is a republican), and proudly proclaims that the N-VA means to reclaim 'conservatism' as a positive term. They see '68 as the rot in society, that must be countered ...
Really, I can't see how my use of neo-liberal & conservative there was used as a buzz word, it encapsulates what the N-VA stands for.
Complain about this comment
#58. At 09:41am on 25 Jul 2010, threnodio_II and
#62. At 10:17am on 25 Jul 2010, Menedemus,
You both make a lot of sense in what you've said and Menedemes's comments complement threnodio's. I think I said some while back that with the easy availability of cruise missiles I can't really see the need for an expensive ballistic missile replacement system. As long as the UK maintains subs and planes that can launch a cruise missile it has a defensive capability. The money saved could be used to repay the vast National debt that is supposedly the cause of the across the board cuts.
However, there are a lot of vested interests that want money to be wasted on a replacement for trident and I suspect the US is a lead in this. The US would stand to gain a lot of trade, and therefore money, if a replacement is designed and built. We already see the way the US are criticising the cuts in EU country's and I think that their main reason is that it affects US trade and therefore business profits.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II wrote:
"#52 - Buzet23
I have no argument with your case about excessive administration in the NHS. I completely agree. My point is simply that there has been financial mismanagement on a massive scale. The notion that the UK can afford a multi-billion pound upgrade for an outdated weapons system but can no long afford to run the welfare state is frankly laughable."
Financial mismanagement? By whom? With respect to whom?
Look, threnodio, we have to be very careful about accusing folks of incompetence. Especially when they are clearly doing ever so well out of the status quo.
Take the issue of the bankers. Everyone is saying how hopeless and incompetent they are, but that is to completely misunderstand the outcomes they have engineered.
Firstly, they made vast profits, unprecedented profits, during the fake economical bubble built on unsustainable debt. And they and their clients still have all those profits. I mean, they didn't have to give any back to its owners. The cars and houses and private jets they bought: they still have them. And of course they were not stupid enough to reinvest their gains into the ponsai schemes they were selling the middle class. So they did very well indeed from the bubble itself. Hardly what I would call incompetent, or "mismanagement".
And after the bubble burst, the bankers kicked even more goals. Have plundered the scheme for interim profits, they then won again by getting governments to refill their vast coffers with tax revenue, and this situation will continue for decades yet to come. After all, the money given to the bankers had to be borrowed, and so it is really being paid for over the next decades, not just now.
And furthermore, the people who lent to money to the governments to give to the banks, they brokered those deals through investment banks! So the bankers even made a commission on the deal to get free money because they were needy!
You call that mismanagement? I call it inspired genius of the highest order. Even now I have an enduring if grudging respect for the banking community. They rolled up the general public and the party system and smoked it. They came, they saw, they walked away with the whole prize. They have demonstrated a complete mastery of the entire political economy of the westminster system and its siblings.
That is not mismanagement. That is supremely competent management.
Now we might be tempted to call it mismanagement because we feel that the political economy and our laws ought not be so devastatingly appropriated by one class of folks. But that is confused reasoning. That is blaming the bankers for the system in which they find themselves, through no fault of their own.
Think about the logic here, for I believe it is enlightening. It was for me, anyway.
Who supports the party system of representation? The bankers? Sort of. They work with it, sure. But it is their system of choice? Hardly. Given the option, they'd go back to feudalism and the divine right of monarchs to make law.
The people who really support the party system are the socialists. All those folks who believe that if you concentrate power in the right party, a utopian workers paradise will be gifted to the long suffering salt of the earth by divinely blessed crusaders of moral principles. Otherwise known as socialist politicians.
Because just as the bankers have done very well for themselves, so have the socialist doctors in the NHS. They work very little, have very little accountability, and receive huge sums of money from the taxpayer.
And the socialist lawyers have done exceptionally well, too. They have created a massive entitlement system that enriches them and incidentally chokes the justice out of the legal system.
It is therefore completely unclear to me that the bankers are the architects of the system they have so brilliantly mastered and dominated. The way I see it, the commies and their crusading saviour type buddies built a rotten system that concentrated power in the party, and away from the demos. And then they lost control over their system because the bankers are smarter than they are, and keep more honest records, and honour their contracts.
So I cannot accept that the bankers have shown a lack of management skills. They were invited into a winner takes all contest for political power, and they have prevailed.
If you don't like that outcome, be prepared to accept that the contest ought never have been staged in the first place. If you simply want someone else to win the same contest, you are a sore loser.
If you think it is fundamentally wrong for the contest to have been staged, well that is a different issue. Then you have a case, but you need to examine who proposed the contest in the first place, and whether allowing them to do so again is sensible, given the standard definition of insanity.
Complain about this comment
#60 Buzet 23
#29 ´Just how do you think the Communists and Socialists that created Social Benefits----´
Considering that the high costs of Health Care and Pensions come under ´Insurance´. The Communists and Socialists have destroyed the word economy with the remaining ´Social Benefits´?
---And what may they be ???
--- not only does the plot thicken, but also your sub-prime logic !
( I am really trying to understand --please believe me !)
Complain about this comment
#62 Menedamus
There are enough privileges and unnecessary spending in the UK that can be reigned in BEFORE you stoop to the American level of inhumanity !
Complain about this comment
#64. At 10:34am on 25 Jul 2010, Leo_Naphta,
re your first point I was not inferring anything about you personally but simply referring to the use of words that can mean anything or nothing, we all use buzz words and especially politicians like them as they are by nature imprecise.
re your second point, the paragraph you have in inverted commas was from your own post #49 and is not one of my posts. As for the N-VA or Vlaams Belang I don't follow their utterings since thankfully they and their type hardly exist in Wallonia and the few we have who are like that are universally disliked. For me they are not neo-liberal or conservative but far more to the right than that and illustrate the difference between soft right as in UK conservatives and hard right as in BNP or those Flemish party's.
Complain about this comment
#66. At 10:53am on 25 Jul 2010, democracythreat,
There are bankers and then there are bankers, let's take a look at that lot in LLoyds that firstly got conned by the US sharp men over sub prime and then got so conned by the UK government into buying HBOS that the UK government had to bail them out of the mess they found they'd bought into. No doubt they still have their inflated salaries and have made a fortune from their 'expert' advice, but the saying 'promoted above their level of competence' springs to mind.
Complain about this comment
"Also, N-VA: New Flemish Alliance, if you want to look up what they stand for."
I smiled, 'cause where I come from it stands from Northern Virginia. [Washington Metropolitan Area]
For example, Pentagon is located in N-VA.
And so are CIA and NRO:)
Complain about this comment
"The notion that the UK can afford a multi-billion pound upgrade for an outdated weapons system but can no long afford to run the welfare state is frankly laughable."
I would think that wepoans can at least create national security.
Whereas welfare state: only more lazy beer-guzzlers on the dole.
But than I may be wrong.
Complain about this comment
"Because just as the bankers have done very well for themselves, so have the socialist doctors in the NHS."
So home some NHS hospitals had to rent some of their wards for porno flicks production to eke out?
Complain about this comment
"There are enough privileges and unnecessary spending in the UK that can be reigned in BEFORE you stoop to the American level of inhumanity !"
If you can jump high enough to see its lower part.
Complain about this comment
#65 - Buzet23
#62 - Menedemus
#66 - democracythreat
Curiously, I think we all making similar points but coming at it from different directions. Buzet is right to correct me for the use of the word 'socialist' but I am using the term in the broadest sense in that there is no government I can think of in western Europe which is not committed to free medical care at the point of need, free education up to university level, a benefits system for the unemployed and incapacitated, retirement pensions and elements of social housing. To that extent, we are all socialists. The question is how we pay for it.
Menedemus is correct to point to the fact that NI contributions fall well short of the amount of money needed to pay for the welfare state but it begs the question of why? Surely the hypothesis was that with population increases over time, the number of people in employment would increase and the income from NI would also increase incrementally. Theoretically, if social contributions were sufficient to maintain the welfare state for 47 million people in 1948, there is no reason why the increased contributions should not meet the needs of 60 million in 2010. Three things have happened here. The first is that increased life expectancy has put an added burden on the pensions sector, the second is that the recovery rate for medical conditions which were at one time thought terminal has increased the cost of medical care across the board and the third is that contributions have not kept pace with costs because they have been diverted for other purposes.
If contributions had been ring fenced from day one and increased to keep pace with the funding required over the entire period, it would have remained self financing. In other words, NI contributions would have been considerably higher but direct taxation would have been lower because a proportion of it would not have been diverted for social expenditure.
In a sense, DT is correct to describe this as effective financial management in the sense that throwing all the eggs into one basket gave great flexibility to the system all the time that there were enough eggs in there. The problem now is that people who grew up believing that they had this huge safety net underneath them because they were paying for it are suddenly discovering that the holes in the net are bigger than they thought and some of the treads that bind it are eroding.
So I am not accusing anyone of financial malpractice. Rather I accuse them of political manipulation which, in my view, came to a head during the last election when the Tories accused Labour of seeking to increase "a tax on jobs". It is actually no such thing. It is a tax on and for social welfare. Nobody would pretend for a moment that if the whole thing had been privatised years ago, the insurers would not have been charging premiums commensurate with the liability. No responsible insurer could or would offer cover which they could see their way to fulfilling. Why should the state be any different?
The whole point of insurance is that it has to be operated as a business which is properly funded and, by failing to ring fence the premiums governments have created the situation in which this no longer pertains. I accept that it is too late to do anything about it now and we all have to take a share of the pain but there are lessons for the future in this and one of them is that we have to design systems which keep social expenditure funding separate from general taxation so that future generations cannot complain that that for which they believed they had paid in all honesty are not being removed for reasons of financial prudence. Either that or we have to abandon the welfare state in its present form altogether. Somehow, I cannot see any political party getting away with that.
Complain about this comment
#67. At 10:56am on 25 Jul 2010, quietoaktree,
I'll try to keep it simple for you as you are trying, EU governments from the left have in general a 'tax and spend' mentality where the ability to fund the spending is an irrelevance. Their mentality is to tax the rich, but then the shock kicks in that anybody in work is 'the rich', so many find it equally as profitable to go on benefits.
Lets take as an example Labour's flagship UK tax credit system that is for those who have a job, because of the way it works it discourages anybody not on fixed hours from working more since they would gain only a few pence per hour, this is Socialist thinking. Those on part time should be encouraged to work more hours when they are offered, but once tax, NHI, and the lost tax credit are removed there is little left.
Normally benefits are a result of the need to help those who need help, but they have to be affordable otherwise an economy goes bankrupt. We are lucky in Europe that our country's pay benefits. Look at the developing world where the leaders (mostly Socialist) spend their money on luxury palaces, military hardware and large armies to defend the revolution whilst the poor are exploited and put on the scrap heap once they can't work for the 'people'. Those benefits have also to be merited and justified, just as any insurance claim is examined for validity.
So now you're asking how that affects the world's economy's, the welfare problem is just one of a number of problems that added together place the economies of the world at risk. Due to the Socialism of Europe our costs have outstripped our income, we've borrowed to make up the difference (hence the current problem), and we've become ever more regulated and controlled which limits the growth that could correct the cost/income imbalance. Does this help?
Complain about this comment
Re #63
Is this some sort of record!?
21 paragraphs to inform all us lowly minions that, 1) Governments use privacy laws to gather information on people, and,
2) Corporations/Businesses do exactly the same from the reverse angle!
Well, my ghast has never been so flabbered!
Complain about this comment
#69, Buzet,
I know I was quoting myself, read my post again. There's a reason why I did it.
Your second point, pains me. It pains me because you are making a complete caricature of the situation and show that you do not understand the N-VA, nor want to understand why they got the votes they did or what they stand for.
The fact that you would lump them in with VB says enough. Vlaams Belang is, as you pointed out, quite in the same corner as the BNP, the PVV, the Lega Nord or the FPÖ. The N-VA however, as much as I am in opposition to their ideals, do not deserve the same label. More, painting them in that light, is counterproductive. The N-VA is not Flemish-Nationalist out of some sort of 'Flemish race' ideal, they're Flemish-nationalist because they think the Belgian political structure is not working anymore, as in, they feel it serves no purpose and only leads to blocked governments & with the preponderance of 'leftist' parties in the South blocking reform in the North. Aside from that, they're probably around the same level of 'to the right' that Maggie was (with the notable difference that they're pro-EU). Equating them with the hard right like you are doing, doesn't solve anything. It's what Joelle Milquet likes to do.
Milquet, by the way, who is at least as much a hardliner as anyone in the N-VA. Every time she opens her mouth, the approval rating for the N-VA shoots up. Madame No, is she's called here. It's her eternal blockage of the state-reform that got the N-VA their votes. I can't believe she actually managed to make license plates a communautarian issue. The same segment of voters that votes N-VA in Flanders, are those that vote CdH, FDF & PP in Wallonia & Brussels.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat, the best thing I can say about the UK is....hmmm, I can't seem to think of any :-) Is it any wonder then that the indigenous population is fleeing like rats deserting a sinking ship? (10% as of a few years ago according to BBC.) Everywhere I go I meet people who emigrated to America from England. I'm sure each of them has a very good reason for it and almost every one of them would tell you what a wonderful place the UK is even though secretly their worst nightmare is being forced to go back. The most typical excuses are marriage to an American and job opportunities. How do I know it's true? They never seem to go back.
Complain about this comment
Re #79
No MAscaridII, not '10%' - - try to get the programme on dvd etc. it will become clear in minutes even to You, if You actually bother to listen & watch properly, that the '10%' figure did not relate to indigenous Britons/English departing the UK on an annula or even over the decade, and most assuredly the USA was not on the top7 destination list.
Quite apart from which the situation has changed so much in more recent years the docu is already in several key-points out-of-date.
Why can You never stick to facts and keep writing this made-up nonsense!?
Complain about this comment
MAII
According to the Office of National Statistics 427,000 people emigrated from the UK in the last 12 months. Of these, 255,000 were non-British citizens either returning to their former homes or moving on elsewhere. 590,000 was the immigration figure so 177,000 people obviously think the UK is a better place to live. According to the Guardian, Australia, France and Spain are the most favoured destinations.
Complain about this comment
Well, I am somewhat surprised that a lawyer from, who makes analogies between USSR and EU, and who is living in a country with bank secrecy that gives the authories in other countries a lot of headache, is writing a statement like “So you have no privacy. Get used to it.” In the first place you could avoid buying an iPhone. That would give you a new area of privacy.
May I just repeat a couple of things from my summary: The matter has appeared in a letter from Apple to members of the US Congress.
Secondly, as I wrote: Some European politicians believe an Ombudsman is the answer. I don’t.
As in the conflict between EU and Microsoft I believe that it is a matter for the commission in Bruxelles, and I consider consumer protection an important matter of EU.
In any case, it is already a matter for the data authorities in a number of European countries, since Apple’s monitoring of users through the cell phone (an anything else is hair splitting since it will make individualised marketing meaningless) is illegal.
Complain about this comment
I can understand that those left behind to go down with the Titanic would like to feel that not so many who were born on it actually found a way to get out on a lifeboat to somewhere else. And BTW, the report was published by BBC BEFORE all those Polish plumbers left. Guess they didn't fix ALL the leaks after all.
I think the USA was not the most popular destination for the British escapees. I'm grateful for the little things. If it had been, the outcome could have been even worse :-) Personally I prefer the illegal Mexicans who come. At least they can cut grass, pick fruit, work in meat packing plants. That's what we need, not more bogus financial experts from "The City." We have enough of our own home grown variety of them already.
Complain about this comment
How stressful was it?
Are we talking EU stress tests or US stress tests?
I was reading a newspaper this morning that had these two headline/statements literally back-to-back:
1. While the European Union seems relieved over the results of a stress test on the performance of European banks, analysts have questioned the test's toughness to uncover faults.
2. US banks shut by regulators
US regulators have closed seven more banks, pushing the 2010 total to 103, making it the second year in a row in which over 100 lenders have been closed.
It was a great temptation on my part to report these juxtaposed statements to you. As you can see, my resistence to the temptation was rather small.
Complain about this comment
BB;
If the European bank regulators thought the stress test would be taken seriously, why did they wait until after the markets closed on a Friday to announce the results. The obvious answer is that they didn't, they simply hoped that it would be old news by Monday morning when the markets open again and so would not precipitate a sudden drop. According to one report I've read, it may have exactly the opposite effect.
Complain about this comment
Re #85 (waiting till Friday night with an announcement.)
What's realy truly surprised me is British Petroleum's announcement that it's starting to drill off Libya.
I thought that BP would wait with such an announcement (confirming all American suspicions) at least for a couple of weeks, hoping than an uproar re Megrahi's "compassionate" release would subside.
But obviously BP does not take U.S. Congress seriously.
Complain about this comment
Mathiasen wrote:
"Well, I am somewhat surprised that a lawyer from, who makes analogies between USSR and EU, and who is living in a country with bank secrecy that gives the authories in other countries a lot of headache, is writing a statement like “So you have no privacy. Get used to it.” In the first place you could avoid buying an iPhone. That would give you a new area of privacy."
Yes, that is right. Not buying an iphone would give you an extra degree of privacy.
Not as much of an increase as leaving Germany and setting up shop in Switzerland, but there we are. The German state pays freelance people to spy on its citizens and break laws in foreign countries to do it. Imagine that! And all so that they can get more revenue from "their citizens". Milk from their cows.
And that is a point you miss badly, Mathiesan. It is not Swiss privacy laws which give the german state a headache. It is simply the fact that the german state cannot completely control every person it wishes to control.
The german state needs more money, because the german state spends more than it gets. And it wants more money, so it invades the privacy of the people living under its care and attempts to shake them down for extra payments. And when those people flee, the german state gets a headache, because it really wants that money and it can't get it when the people flee over the border. And that makes the german state angry, and sad. It gets a headache. Poor thing.
But the reason you are simply wrong to attribute the cause to Swiss privacy laws is that if not for Switzerland, it would be someone else. The people in germany do not wish to tolerate such high taxation, and they seek alternatives. If not Switzerland, then the British Virgin Islands. If not there, then the Cayman Islands. Or Delaware. Or California, where moderately high taxation is offset by other benefits.
There are plenty of places to go to get away from german taxation, Mathiesan. THAT is what gives the road agents of the german state a headache, not swiss privacy laws.
I will tell you something else which gives the german state a headache: the mass of ultra wealthy people who are voting with their feet and leaving germany as a result of the criminal activity of the german state. That is the thing about the ultra rich. They value what privacy their lawyers can obtain for them, and they do not tolerate places where people behave like the road agents of the german state. They just get in their lear jets and leave. Technically, they become resident somewhere else.
And do you know what happens then, Mathiesan?
The german state comes clawing on its knees, begging them to keep their factories in Germany, and not to take any more wealth out of the state.
Because the lost tax revenue from the resident super rich individuals is a huge amount of money, but it is nothing compared to the lost tax revenues and increased public spending required when whole factories shut down and move elsewhere.
Right now the party members from the german state are on their knees in zurich, pleading with folks like me that their government is not run by fascist hooligans who think they can act criminally with impunity. They are on their knees, begging and pleading upon behalf of the entire german people.
Because treating those who create wealth like criminals only drives them elsewhere, and then you really do have the USSR.
Now the road agents of the german state seem to have understood this lesson, after it was explained to them in terms of one syllable or less, and so now they are agreeing to leave the Swiss privacy laws alone.
Now they only want to invade the privacy of middle class germans who can't fight back. So they are going after the employees of the super rich, and leaving the super rich alone. that way they can be seen to be acting like the guy with the eagles on his shoulders, but at the same time they are still on their knees before the super rich, begging forgiveness.
I tell you Mathiesan, there is nothing quiet as classy as a representative of the German state in action. Everytime I meet one, I forget myself completely, and become awestruck with the grandeur of the occasion and the rare opportunity to learn how to deport myself like a superior human being.
Complain about this comment
threnodio_II wrote:
"MAII
According to the Office of National Statistics 427,000 people emigrated from the UK in the last 12 months. Of these, 255,000 were non-British citizens either returning to their former homes or moving on elsewhere. 590,000 was the immigration figure so 177,000 people obviously think the UK is a better place to live. According to the Guardian, Australia, France and Spain are the most favoured destinations."
You can imagine the joy in Australia, France and Spain at the news. Being the favoured destination for British emigrants is right up there with being considered tasty by mosquitos.
But it is also curious that there is such a large "exchange" of folks in the UK. I had no idea, so thanks for the data. It is interesting.
If we consider that the outflow is likely white christian folks and the inflow is likely brown non christian folks, then it would be fair to say that the demographic profile of the UK must be changing at a very swift rate indeed.
Perhaps we can all look forward to a UK with interesting food and hard working inhabitants! And a lot of mosques, obviously.
Or are the immigrants to the UK actually white and christian?
Do you have the data on the demographic profiles handy?
Complain about this comment
Powermeerkat
Whilst almost always siding with the 'Atlantic Alliance' over any issue & especially in preference to the axis-of-ill-intent just across the Channel I think this 'Megrahi' & 'anti-BP' stuff eminating from the USA is really getting well out of proportion.
You suggest BP don't take the US Senate seriously: How right You are & why would they!?
These are 4 Senators up for mid-term election trying to impress their constituents by appearing to put the frighteners on former Ministers & Ministers of 2 sovereign States.
Of course they are also concerned about the Locherbie tragedy: As is anyone decent & the freeing of Megrahi was a very unfortunate episode; nevertheless, it followed clear, legal procedures by the many centuries independent Judicial authorities of Scotland.
Frankly, the Senators' recent letters to UK politicians are farcical: They have already had the assurances & written evidence that nothing untoward happened by the First Minister of Scotland & its Chief Justice; furthermore they have received the assurances of the former UK Foreign Minister & the present Prime Minister.
If the USA Government or its distinguished Senators are not satisfied with that, then not to coin a phrase - - it's tough luck.
The UK is an independent State and Scotland has its own devolved elected Government. Together they are also the USA's staunchest NATO/European ally and the USA has too few allies in the World to be letting 4 ambitious, publicity-seeking politicos seriously undermine that diplomatic-balance of a so-called 'special relationship'.
Neither the USA nor the UK need this sort of muck-slinging.
E.g. IMO, as the counterweight, if Jack Straw etc. were to attend the Senate 'Hearings' then Messrs Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. had better be on the next plane to London to appear before the Chilcott Iraq Public Enquiry to explain their Board membership with US Companies that dominate contracts with the Iraq Government!
When push-comes-to-shove: You see, how dirty this sort of game can get!?
Complain about this comment
#78. At 1:51pm on 25 Jul 2010, Leo_Naphta,
It's a pity we could not discuss this offline as I think we would have an interesting discussion as I understand what you are saying and I suspect you would understand what I have learnt during my time in Wallonia. There is no easy solution and there are too many political viewpoints that are simply serving their own ends on both sides. The PS and MR have played games for years and now the CDH which was formerly catholic is trying to catch up, likewise on your side as there are many trying to stretch their muscles and playing on the gullibility of the voters.
Complain about this comment
MAscaridII
Re #83 & #79
In a litany of absurdities these are two of Your weakest contributions in a very long time!
Complain about this comment
#89. At 7:58pm on 25 Jul 2010, cool_brush_work,
They can also explain whilst here in the UK what involvement they have/had with IRA fund raising and whether their involvement as politicians from the New York area that contributed so much, was helping kill and maim the victims of IRA bombs in the UK. Some things don't get forgotten our USA friends, eh.
Complain about this comment
Re #88
'..tasty by mossies..'!
Hmm, it is only a guess, but being the mosquitos' preferred bite rather than having to share the domecile of the pontificating Swiss sage may just tip the scales in favour of any other destination in the World.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23
Re #92
I always get into 'trouble' with the BBC MODS when I write about N.Ire, so best I just concur with You and add, '..let he who is without sin cast the first stone..'.
Complain about this comment
Back to the topic: I wondered a bit about the results, in that 'only' 7 out of 91 banks 'failed' the test. The test is in fact looking at the Tier 1 capital ratio (the ratio of the bank's Tier 1 capital to the total of the risk weighted assets they hold), and requires it to be above 6% after application of an 'adverse scenario with sovereign shock'.
In the main report, it is said that all 26 major EU cross-border banks tested have a Tier 1 capital ratio in the worst case equal to or above 7.4%, while this ratio drops below 6% for 7 of the 65 smaller banks. To get insight in where the weakness of the EU banking system lies, it is an easy exercice to raise the threshold of 6% (admitted to be ad hoc in the report) to 7%. There are 24 banks below this, of which 14 are Spanish (of the 27 Spanish banks tested). So as a result of the EU stress test, we now know that the Spanish banking system is shaky. I suppose the Spanish knew this already; even Mr. Hewitt made a remark about it. I expect that more 'consolidation' (i.e. mergers or takeovers) is to come.
What is said in the report is that some banks still enjoy government support. However, this is not quantified for each bank, so here insider's knowledge is needed. Just one other way of feeling the 'democratic deficit'...
Now to the off-topic hot subject: having read about the Lockerbie case against Al Megrahi, and in particular the SCCRC arguments allowing his second appeal, I am watching with interest the case. There seems to be an entirely different attitude between some of the UK relatives of the victims, and some of the USA relatives. There seems to be more to it than meets the eye, and the Scottish minister request for the USA to publish the correspondence between the USA and the Scottish government is IMO a good move. Let's see whether the USA is really the paradise of democratic transparency some people believe it ought to be.
Complain about this comment
cbw, do you have anything more concrete to defend you plessed blot, your skewered isle, your England, than Edward Elgar?
Complain about this comment
sm*****t;
"There seems to be more to it than meets the eye, and the Scottish minister request for the USA to publish the correspondence between the USA and the Scottish government is IMO a good move. Let's see whether the USA is really the paradise of democratic transparency some people believe it ought to be."
Why bother asking? Just wait awhile and Wikitellsall will publish it anyway.
Complain about this comment
3. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"I don't have the facts"
_________________________________
Could not agree with you more.
Complain about this comment
MA II - where are the hourly updates on the EuroDollar cross?
When we were testing lows a few weeks back, you had quite a bit of 'insightful analysis'. Where's the hourly updates now the cross is at 1.29??
Oh and FYI, no one is gonna buy 'central bank intervention' as a driver so you may have to be a bit more creative (try to use the words 'Titanic' and 'Chamberlain' in your response for extra points).
I'm also waiting for your predictions of the end of the UK, the end of Europe, the end of BP, the end of blah, blah, blah to come to fruition? Care to put some dates on these predictions?
You typify what it is like to be a bitter old man.
Complain about this comment
88. At 7:09pm on 25 Jul 2010, democracythreat wrote:
"...
You can imagine the joy in Australia, France and Spain at the news. Being the favoured destination for British emigrants is right up there with being considered tasty by mosquitos...."
EUprisoner: And how would you know that this view is widely held?
Complain about this comment
Dolly Parton;
"3. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"I don't have the facts"
_________________________________
Could not agree with you more."
I'm glad you are an economist and an expert financial analyst who has read all of the pertinent data, analyzed it, and understands it thoroughly. Why don't you relate it to us and explain to those of us who are less well informed and not so proficient at divining the financial tea leaves as you are what it all means and why.
I'm neither bitter nor old, at least not yet. If I'm lucky I'll one day live long enough to get old. As for the Euro I said it appeared central banks in the US and Europe were propping it up for now. Next big crisis the bottom will likely fall out from under it. But if you don't think so, why not put your money where your mouth is and invest all of your own personal assets in Euro deniminated securities?
Complain about this comment
101 MarcusArmpit II
"I'm glad you are an economist and an expert financial analyst who has read all of the pertinent data, analyzed it, and understands it thoroughly. Why don't you relate it to us and explain to those of us who are less well informed and not so proficient at divining the financial tea leaves as you are what it all means and why."
______________________________
At least we're getting somewhere!! First the admission of not knowing the facts and now admitting you are less well informed! I again agree wholeheartedly!
So if you are admittedly short of facts and not well informed what makes you relevant? What makes your predictions of the end of Europe, Euro, UK, BP of anything not American even worth listening to? Given your lack of accuracy in your predictions and knowledge gap I'd hazard a guess and say your opinions are worthless (as they have been since you dedicated your life to this site).
You ask me to put my money where my mouth is and invest in Euro Securities - not sure how you got this from my request for your insight around recent Euro strength? But for what it's worth, over the past few weeks I've seen my personal EuroDollar position move 14 big figures in my favor - is that enough money-in-mouth action for you? BP stock has worked out very nicely over the past 2 weeks, thanks for asking.
Re you being old, well you cry often and at length around how a waiter was rude to you in France in the 70s - well that makes you at lest 60-70 now and that's bloody old in my book!
PS. How did you know that I hold a degree in Economics?
Complain about this comment
Dolly Parton;
"PS. How did you know that I hold a degree in Economics?"
Simple. You don't know anything about it. How do you think economists managed to bankrupt the entire world. Let's not forget that a mere 30 months ago, professional economists were mostly very optomistic telling us that we weren't even going to have a recession. Do you remember that? You're all cut from the same bolt of cloth, study the same theories, make the same mistakes. What did that professional economist Benranke or was it Geitner say recently about the US economy? I think one of them said there was an unusually high degree of uncertainty now. In plain English they're clueless, just like you. Lost in the dark groping telling the world everything will be just fine. I don't know how they feel in Europe but in America the anger is palpable. Whoever is in office will probably be voted out. If Obama had to run for re-election this November, he'd lose big time mostly on his failure to restore the US economy. He and his "expert economists" have focused on everything from health care to the middle east while the US economy languishes. And all the time the economists tell us everything is going to be all right. Sorry if we don't believe you guys anymore. That's what happens sooner or later when you're always wrong.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
With all the mess within Europe, you'd think Baroness Ashton would have better things to do than waste time having French lessons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8583090.stm
What's the point? French is not a universal language - and besides, and most French people understand English perfectly well. As Quentin Crisp famously said, “I don't hold with abroad and think that foreigners speak English when our backs are turned”
Complain about this comment
103 MarcusArmpitII wrote:
Oh dear, is that all you have Mr Pensioner? A rant about Economists and Obama? Nothing about the money-where-mouth-is? Or about your crazy, unfounded predictions? - well I agree with you that Obama would lose if he ran for re-election, you fools voted him in and now you're dealing with the consequences.
I do find it laughably ironic that after all your faux predictions that are all garbage you have the temerity to rail against economists making dud predictions - fool.
But you miss one key point (actually myriad). I said I have a degree in Economics, but I am not an Economist nor have I ever been an Economist in the same way that I have a degree in Political Science but am not a politician or ever have been a politician. I assume you majored in ignorant angry mouth shoot offs?
And FYI I could care less about your health system or Obama's baby steps in the real world- except as mild amusement material.
Complain about this comment
Re Meghrahi's "compassionate" release.
CBW., I don't know any rational person in the U.S. who would claim that what the British/Scottish (Scotland being about as sovereign as Catalonia or Baskonia) did was illegal.
However quite a few Americans - by no means only those 4 senators you've mentioned - believe that there was an external pressure to have the Qaddafi's agent released under whatever pretext.
[BP just starting to drill off Libya only reinforces those suspicions].
Forget British government supressing and terminatating a legal investigation into illegal nefarious activities of BAE, claiming that "vital nationals interests were at stake"
But, please, imagine for a moment what kind of comments would we read in HYS and here if a bombed jumbo-jet was not PanAm, but by BA, most of its killed passengers were not American but British, and U.S. authorities released its apprehended Libyan bomber on "compassionate" grounds, only for Britons to find out that Exxon or Chevron got fat oil contracts in Qaddafi's latifundium soon after that.
The whole thing stinks to heaven, and not only of petroleum.
BTW. I hear that Mr. Hayward is going to me made to resign within hours.
Complain about this comment
Re #105 "What's the point? French is not a universal language"
[France24 TV channel seems to understand that]
Just as a lot of Americans have learnt or are learning Spanish, perhaps the above mentioned Baroness would do better taking Urdu lessons.
Complain about this comment
#105. At 04:49am on 26 Jul 2010, DistantTraveller
Well, I understand that you don't read your own links.
In the article you will find the sentence: "French is traditionally the language of diplomacy and of EU business." Yes, not to mention France's position in the EU or the Francophone area within the Union.
Complain about this comment
@#17, MA:
"And I did live there for almost two years so I know it first hand..."
Woohaahahahaha. You live a WHOLE 2 years in "Europe" (with its enormous diversity) and now you know what 'Europe' is like? Haha, you are indeed a fool, MA... Does that stand for 'Misguided American', by any chance? Oh no, I forgot, that is a pleonasm...
Complain about this comment
"""CBW., I don't know any rational person in the U.S. who would claim that what the British/Scottish (Scotland being about as sovereign as Catalonia or Baskonia) did was illegal."""
More or less correct in the sense that if Britain would not had said the OK, Scottland would had never proceeded to the realese of this man.
"""However quite a few Americans - by no means only those 4 senators you've mentioned - believe that there was an external pressure to have the Qaddafi's agent released under whatever pretext."""
Correct. British are reknowned for not being clement to people having been accused on much less serious things and condamned on a lesser basis.
"""[BP just starting to drill off Libya only reinforces those suspicions]."""
Correct analysis. You just started thinking my way there. Apparently cos in this case it somehow suits you. Try enlarging your view and inlcude in this affair the """accident""" in the Haliburton constructed, BP leased, Transocean operated Mexican Gulf drill as in relation to the conflicting petroleum indiustry vs. bankers interests within the US that led to that.
Complain about this comment
Hayward the Scapegoat (it was not him who pushued for Meghrahi's release)
made to "resign" in a few hours.
[you're free to correct me if it turns out I was wrong]
Complain about this comment
Dolly Parton;
"I am not an Economist nor have I ever been an Economist in the same way that I have a degree in Political Science but am not a politician or ever have been a politician. I assume you majored in ignorant angry mouth shoot offs?"
Actually I majored in Engineering and I AM a practicing engineer. Unlike you, I wasn't taught what to think, I was trained HOW to think. And my analysis shows that in the long run, Europe's economy is unsustainable, unstable, in the context of its political, social, and demographic realities on the eve of a precipitous collapse, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Denial is not a river in Egypt, it's the last refuge of the irrational refusing to accept what is staring them in the face. I knew you were no economist. And you admit that you have a piece of paper from a European university to prove it.
burptime;
Two years of living among Europeans, traveling a little there, and getting the flavor of life first hand I found that Europeans and European countries have much in common with each other that is radically different from Americans and America. What they have in common is what ultimately dooms them. How grateful I am to my grandparents who left Europe for America, it's the greatest gift they could have given me. As I am untainted by a distorted view of life having had a chance to view it and judge it for myself without the prism of any religion being imposed on me, I am also untainted by having a had a chance to view it without the small narrow limited perspective of having been a European. Looking at it from a safe distance having had a chance to study it up close, I can not only see it clearly, I can see that from the perspective of its natives, they cannot see the forest for the trees.
Complain about this comment
powermeerkat #107
We hear about America putting profit above all else, all the time. We're beleaguered by it. Most of the stories are far more convincing than this one, and require far less conjecture, too.
And, as we are imagining potential comments if the situation were to be reversed, let's imagine the comments Stateside if some British political nonentities were indignantly demanding American politicians come and answer to them about what was ultimately an American decision to make.
Hmmmm... They're not pretty!
Complain about this comment
ElagabalusII #113: "I can see that from the perspective of its natives, they cannot see the forest for the trees"
Nice technique! That can be roughly translated as "whatever you say, I know better than you"
Unfortunately for you, a blind man on a galloping horse could see that, without exception, your comments on Europe are motivated, not by facts or rational opinion, but a deep-rooted resentment caused by... Hmmm. I'm not sure what your resentment is caused by, but resentment isn't usually provoked by feelings of superiority. So...
Complain about this comment
"imagine the comments Stateside if some British political nonentities were indignantly demanding American politicians come and answer to them about what was ultimately an American decision to make."
Nobody DEMANDED that Scottish/British politicians come and testify in the U.S. Congress. [re Meghraghi scandal]
They were simply ASKED to come and clarify a pretty murky issue.
They declined.
Nobody is going to kindap them and water-board them until they reveal the truth.
Should I draw it for you or repeat that statement in Arabic? Or Urdu?
Complain about this comment
string-a-ling, my ridicule isn't motivated by resentment but by contempt. I see Europe for what it is, I see it clearly, and I detest it. That goes for Britain too and despite some British protest, the UK is very much part of Europe.
Complain about this comment
No, I don't need anything repeated in Arabic or Urdu. I am an English-speaker. Why do you ask? Are you giving us all a clue to your paranoia?
Yes, that's right, PM, 'nobody demanded' anything. Everyone with an opinion on the subject, in the US, was highly respectful of Scotland's and Britain's right to make decisions without America's permission. The US respects all of its allies and would be rightly offended should anyone ever suggest it regularly attempts to bully its way through international dealings.
Complain about this comment
By the way, PM, what do you imagine the response would be if the presence of key politicians was respectfully requested at the Hutton Inquiry, to determine exactly why the UK was taken to war?
I have an inkling it would be rather less respectfully rejected. It seems we are worthy of respect from you only when our support is required to assist in bypassing international law. After that, the UK is worth little more than the chewing gum stuck to your proverbial boot.
Complain about this comment
BBC has already published an article about it.
I just want to highlight that the commission in Bruxelles is suspecting IBM of misusing the dominating role of the concern on the European computer market and has opened two cases against IBM.
Complain about this comment
OK, Ellie, you have nothing but contempt for Europe and you see it clearly for what it is. Please can you enlighten us?
You see I am a rational person, so I am very interested in seeing Europe: a continent of over 800m people with a multitude of cultures, on which the culture of the globe - including the USA - is predominantly based, defined in one sneering, bitter, ill-informed, irrational little snipe.
Whether you realise it, or not you have been out-witted, proven wrong and embarrassed dozens of times on this blog. You have shown yourself to be bigoted and xenophobic, with an inclination to randomly attempt to justify your spite, without success, and leave yourself open to further ridicule.
I look forward to your response.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Powermeerkat, but I cannot agree on this one: The USA Senators were trying to muscle the UK & Scottish Governments into attending US Senate 'hearings' and by implication proposing they had authority & remit way beyond that which is normal.
There is nothing 'murky' about it: The UK PM & the Scottish First Minister plus a former UK Foreign Secretary have given specific undertakings that the BP lobbying had absolutely nothing to do with the 'Megrahi' release.
I say again: If that level of assurance from the UK is deemed insufficient for the US Senate then I'm afraid the 'tough luck' experience will be a salutary lesson for it in understanding whilst it does have significant prestige and influence it has on this occasion well & truly over-stepped the mark with a loyal ally.
Complain about this comment
Re #111
"..if Britain would not had said the OK, Scotland would had never proceeded to realease this man.."
Utter rubbish!
You clearly have little or no understanding or knowledge of the devolved authority & powers of Scotland and even less grasp of the centuries of historic independence of the Scottish Judiciary.
As for the rest of the observations: Drivel....
Complain about this comment
, stirling222 wrote:
No, I don't need anything repeated in Arabic or Urdu. I am an English-speaker. Why do you ask? Are you giving us all a clue to your paranoia?
No simply alluding to my recent visit to London.
[reminded me very much of Peshawar, Accra, Rabat and Nairobi.]
Complain about this comment
# 109 Mathiesen
"French is traditionally the language of diplomacy and of EU business."
I think that is highly improbable, but no doubt that's what they would like us to think! The unelected and unaccountable EU Commission spends much of its time trying to enforce one-size-fits-all policies. The pièce de résistance was perhaps the creation of the ill-feted Eurozone.
A single currency is bad enough, but can you imagine the furore if they tried to impose a single language? The French would never stand for that - so why should we?
To survive, the EU has to do business with the rest of the World. The rest of the World speaks English.
Complain about this comment
Ladies and gentlemen (I use the term loosely). The comments made remind me of arguments my wife and I use to have. I might complain about some recent action she had taken only to have her recite all of my transgressions for the last 30 years. If the subject started out about the purchase of some overpriced trinket it ended with the fact that 20 years ago I gave her birthday present to her at the end of the day and not the beginning. I just figured you had a whole day.
As I mentioned above we use to have arguments. That was before I learned to say "yes dear".
Complain about this comment
"I just want to highlight that the commission in Bruxelles is suspecting IBM of misusing the dominating role of the concern on the European computer market and has opened two cases against IBM"
Ssome things open, some irreversibly end:
like Pride Parades.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Many here have strange priorities.
Let me mention the single most important political news today: The leak of 90.000 secret US military records about the war in Afghanistan.
It is likely to change the public opinion, in the first place, and the western alliance policy in the area in the second.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#124 PM: I know this is an attempt to score your little points, but I think you are demonstrating the unpleasant characteristics typical of person the fear-mongering and paranoid media thrive on.
#129 The US government may be trying to convince everyone this leak could be catastrophic etc. etc. but it only confirms what everyone knew anyway. Oh, what a shock! Afghani children are regularly slaughtered at the hands of Allied troops! The Taliban are much better equipped and more highly organised than the Americans would ever admit. Every critic of this war has been saying this for years. The only difference now is the bigwigs can't just deny it before moving on to their own rhetoric. I wish there were more leaks like this exposing other appaling deeds our governments carry out, in our name.
Complain about this comment
# 125,
You do know what the word 'traditionally' means, right? It's not 'highly improbable' is just a basic fact. English, at this point in time, is most certainly the most widely used language for business contacts & political contacts. However, this was not always the case and before English took over this role - which it did piece by piece after the American rise to dominate international politics - it was French. French was the international language by a large margin. Which is why for example in Tolstoy's War and Peace, French is so widely used (and the book even partially written in French). Now, after WWII the supremacy of French in international life declined sharply, but when the EU started, and in the area it started, it was - and still is partially - the number one language. Only quite recently (the last 20-30 years) has English been gaining to role French once had.
This really isn't a big secret or anything.
Complain about this comment
96. At 11:31pm on 25 Jul 2010, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
cbw, do you have anything more concrete to defend you plessed blot, your skewered isle, your England, than Edward Elgar?
------------------------------
Oh marky insult us all you want we just can`t help being superior its because we just are,don`t ask me why its in our blood,you have either got it or you haven`t.Do not feel too bad most of the world is not British,
they can`t help it either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE162op5DzA&feature=related
This music is just the ticket whilst looking down on every one else.
Percell & used by a Russian Lass,see boyo she can see it too, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.Thank goodness I am British, sorry marky ,some have to be second, sorry old bean..
Complain about this comment
ukwales
Re #96 & Your #133
Yes, glowering, sad, tempramentally unsuited MAscaridII has such a struggle everyday: Imagine, continually waking up & being that side of the Atlantic - - not so much 'groundhog' day as 'hogtied' - - poor, poor fellow!
TeeHeee....
Complain about this comment
DistantTraveller
Re #125
Mathiasen is correct: For centuries the language of diplomacy was French - - from Russia to Great Britain via all places in-between the 'diplomatic' discourse was held in French.
This reflected France's pre-eminent historic geo-political position until the late-17th Century.
As the tide of affairs changed to the negative for France and coincided with the emergence of Great Britain's Imperial presence so English became the 'common' language of the World Traveller, but French remained the recognised 'Court' Language of most of the World until almost the end of the 19th Century.
British Passports, first issued by Lord Palmerston (mid-19thC), were written in English & French. British Public Schools studied French not because it was across the Channel, but because it was the language of the 'corps diplomatique'.
There is some argument the use of French instead of English in some Capitals (e.g. St.Petersburg & Paris; St.Petersburg & Vienna - - senior diplomats spoke to their opposite numbers & at times wrote in French their reports to their respective Leadership) in the early months of 1914 did play a small part in the misunderstandings & misconceptions between the European Monarchies-Governments that ultimately led to the outbreak of the Great War.
English is the most widely used modern day language and International Flights etc. compulsorily use it (the recent Polish President's air crash is believed partly to have resulted from weak use of English by Russian Ground Control & the Polish Pilots): That said, Chinese is the most common 'national' language and Spanish is close on the heels of English as a language of communication across the World.
The U.N.O. has 6 Languages for all its documentation: Arabic, English, Chinese, French, Russian & Spanish.
Complain about this comment
#132. At 6:07pm on 26 Jul 2010, Leo_Naphta,
You're somewhat out here I'm afraid, French was most certainly the primary diplomatic language and they did have overseas territories that spread that influence but against that the British Empire was a lot larger for several centuries. You've also forgotten the Spanish language which even centuries ago was prevalent in South America, except for Brazil which uses Portugese. You might also be surprised to know that America almost became German speaking at its beginning rather than English speaking and apart from a few regions French was not even in the running just like in Canada. As for Chinese, or rather a certain dialect of it, this was a trick question in trivial pursuits as to which was the most spoken language, internationally it is English but because of the number of Chinese in China the answer is a dialect of Chinese. Therefore WWII has nothing to do with the decline of the French language, that happened much much earlier than that I'm afraid when they lost a lot of colonial influence in various wars etc.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 136
I'm aware that Spanish is a world language, I have lived in South America and my spouse (legal cohabitation) is from Latin America, I speak the language too. ;) Spanish however, lost it's hold on elite culture after the period of Charles V & Phillips II, when that Empire collapsed in the competition with more vibrant ones.
I'm also aware of the story about German almost becoming the dominant language in the USA, but that has to do, primarily with demographics & immigration. Now, I am aware that the British Empire was larger, both in size and population than the French Empire. I wasn't, however, referring to such dominance. I was referring to the cultural dominance that the French language held in the world, which is a position that is now been overtaken by English. The decline was already evident in the inter-war period, of course, just like the decline of the colonial powers you have been seen then, even if it didn't break yet … but the real decline came with the ascendancy of the USA to not only economical and political predominance in the Western world, but also cultural predominance. Before WWII French was still largely the language of the world elite, in artistic and diplomatic circles (even in the UK). It was in decline, but not nearly like it is now. In Europe itself, it lingered on for a bit longer, hence the traditional function it preformed in the EU. The EU of course, being a construct that for a large time had France as the predominant power as well – before the UK joined – and it would have been unthinkable to use German for the diplomatic purposes. Hence, French. Colonial influence is one thing, cultural another.
Complain about this comment
In his instruction to students, prof. Umberto Eco mentioned that it would be necessary to read French for anybody that would want to write about Nietzsche or Freud. I mention the example here to illustrate, why I find this discussion somewhat mistaken.
In the beginning of it we had a couple of contributors here, who wanted to illustrate their ignorance in connection with the possible French studies of Lady Ashton. In her case it is simple: It will be an advantage for the EU if the “foreign minister” is capable of speaking French, since a number of countries and organisations use that language.
From there it developed into a discussion that is typical in the media and the world of sports, but not in the academia. In that world you are expected to read the necessary languages, whatever it is. At the same time you need a general language tool (examinations), which is listed in the admission conditions.
If you want to make holiday in Toscana or sing opera, you will get nowhere with English.
Complain about this comment
"the recent Polish President's air crash is believed partly to have resulted from weak use of English by Russian Ground Control & the Polish Pilots"
Both parties communicated in Russian [vide audio fligh recorders' tapes]
And the language was not a cause of the crash.[vide data flight recordes]
Complain about this comment
Buzet wrote:
"You might also be surprised to know that America almost became German speaking at its beginning rather than English"
Dutch was also important before New Amsterdam was renamed New York. :)
Complain about this comment
"Therefore WWII has nothing to do with the decline of the French language"
Correct: for purely geopolitical reasons French started to lose its importance since at least 2nd half of XIXth century.
[English was already then the language of merchants and seamen.]
Just like German (for quite a while a main language of science and engineering) was pushed out by American English, due to pre-eminent role of American science and engineering since the beginning of the XXth century.
BTW. you're also right re so called Chinese.
Majority of Han speak Cantonese, minority - Mandarin.
Tibetans speak Tibetan, Uighurs -a form of Turkish.
Mongolians (from Inner Mongolia) -Mongolian. Etc. etc.
Complain about this comment
# 132 Leo_Naphta
"English, at this point in time, is most certainly the most widely used language for business contacts & political contacts. However, this was not always the case and before English took over this role - which it did piece by piece after the American rise to dominate international politics - it was French."
Well, you could back even further when most business was conducted in Latin. French is not dominant today, so I'm not sure why Baroness Ashton should spend her time (highly paid at our expense!) learning another language.
I've got nothing against people learning another language in their own time if they want to, but to suggest Baroness Ashton needs to speak French to do her job properly is implausible. Most French people speak perfectly good English as you would expect. If they say they can't, they're probably just pretending.
Complain about this comment
#135 cool_brush_work
Yes, I don't think anyone is disputing French was once more widely used than it is today. Historically, French was also the language of nobility - as we see on Her Majesty The Queen's coat of arms. But the suggestion that French is the preferred language of Europe in this day and age is highly questionable.
Who knows what the most widely spoken language around the world will be in years to come? Possibly Chinese....
The sad thing is, there are many young people today in the UK who leave school without being able to speak proper English. The chances of them learning French are even more remote.
Complain about this comment
... Nobody is saying it's the 'preferred language' in Europe. Again, do you grasp the meaning of the word 'traditionally'. Also, no most French people don't speak perfectly good English, only 36% of the population is proficient in English. You're overestimating how many speak English - I'm guessing sample bias - but that's really not the point either way, since she wouldn't be speaking with the average French citizen anyway. The point is that traditionally French has been the major language of EU diplomacy. Diplomacy being also a keyword here. It's not 'necessary' in a strict sense that she speak French to do her job, but it would help as it comes off ... let's say, diplomatic if you try to communicate in the language of the person you are speaking to, even if you're not doing the entire conversation that way. A lot of people in Europe still use French as a lingua franca, just because they don't fall under your sphere of interest, doesn't mean they disappeared. And we're not talking about the distant "nobility" past when we say French was the language of EU diplomacy, it was de facto the language of EU diplomacy until the UK joined the project. In which language do you think the Treaty of Rome was negotiated? You do have to remember that a lot of people at that level in politics weren't educated today with today's 'standards' of what the proper international language is, by the way.
Complain about this comment
# 145 Leo_Naphta
You talk of tradition, but traditions change - which is just as well as otherwise we would all be speaking Latin.
My point is, there is no good reason for a British official to learn French in order to do her job.
For the most part, the real language of the EU is Double Dutch.
Complain about this comment
Yes, traditions change. I'm not saying that she should learn it because of tradition. You however, don't seem to want to understand that we're not talking about a couple of 'generations' ago, like Latin. It's a false comparison. French held a very dominant position in Europe – we're talking about the EU – until a couple of decades ago. It is still one of the three working languages of the EU, together with German and English – and it would probably help to be able to speak it when you are the head of the new European DIPLOMATIC service, wouldn't you agree? I'm quite sure that somebody like Karel De Gucht uses French for his day-to-day work, as I've heard his English, and it is quite atrocious compared to his French. Ashton isn't a British official, by the way, she's an EU official of British nationality, a very different thing altogether.
This really isn't a hard argument to follow. In the job that she is going to do, knowing French is a plus. Saying you want to learn it, is a good faith sign towards other members of the Union. This is important if you want to be able to do the job of a diplomat.
Complain about this comment
Re #143 "French is not dominant today, so I'm not sure why Baroness Ashton should spend her time (highly paid at our expense!) learning another language."
Judging by her official pronouncements the economist could use some classes in foreign/international affairs. :(
Complain about this comment
The Distan Traveller wrote:
"The sad thing is, there are many young people today in the UK who leave school without being able to speak proper English. The chances of them learning French are even more remote."
How about Celtic? [going back to one's roots]
Complain about this comment
Re #146" For the most part, the real language of the EU is Double Dutch."
In colloquial American 'going Dutch' means: everybody pays for himself.
[it probably originated in an era when New York was still called Neuw Amsterdam.]
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS