|
Zikan posted:It all goes back to the point that this is a continent wide crisis due to the interconnectedness of global finance and the lack of limits it has had for the past decade. One small thing, it's not a continent wide it's a global crisis. Don't be fooled into thinking this is Europe's problem and Europe alone. It is a global crisis, Europe just happens to be in the spotlight now (and trust me, it will change, don't forget that the 2008 financial crisis more or less originated in the US and this "new" crisis is still that same one at the end of the day)
|
| # ¿ Nov 12, 2011 01:13 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 26, 2013 01:52 |
|
|
Orillion posted:The main cause of the current euro crisis is structural: European countries, for various reasons, have been unable to make the necessary reforms and have been neglectfully accumulating insane levels of public debt for the last 30 years. The current events were bound to happen some day, the 2008 crisis might have accelerated things a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_public_debt This is not a PIIGS thing. Japan is at almost 200% debt-to-gdp, Canada is 84%, the UK is 80%, even the US is 62% (more than Spain for the record) Where are these countries who don't have insane levels of public debt? The 2008 crisis didn't accelerate anything it was just a major failure of the financial system. The "solution" was to shift debt from private entities to governments and here we are. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at Nov 12, 2011 around 15:29 |
| # ¿ Nov 12, 2011 15:26 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:a) Those countries have control over their own monetary policy - the PIIGS don't Orange Devil posted:I think the thing with Spain is that the country has a lot of private debt, rather than public debt. I realize that there are different situations which have forced the spotlight on to a few European countries, but my point was that ALL of the major developed nations haven taken on great amounts of debt in the hopes that economic growth will allow them to eventually pay off those debts. I don't think it's fair to say quote:The main cause of the current euro crisis is structural: European countries, for various reasons, have been unable to make the necessary reforms and have been neglectfully accumulating insane levels of public debt for the last 30 years. When this could be applied to any number of countries outside of Europe (even if they have better methods of delaying the inevitable)
|
| # ¿ Nov 12, 2011 16:26 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Berlusconi has resigned, huge amount of celebration being reported in Rome. I don't understand how him resigning affects their economic issues in any way. edit. That being said he was pretty lovely but I'm sure the next guy will be too.
|
| # ¿ Nov 13, 2011 01:09 |
|
|
Either way all of the countries I mentioned (Japan, the US, Canada, the UK) all took the exact same path as the "troubled" and "irresponsible" countries.quote:The main cause of the current euro crisis is structural: European countries, for various reasons, have been unable to make the necessary reforms and have been neglectfully accumulating insane levels of public debt for the last 30 years. Again, this is what I disagree with. I think it's wrong to claim they were doing something neglectfully (unless your claim is that those other countries are neglectful as well, which goes back to my claim that this crisis is global and not a European one)
|
| # ¿ Nov 13, 2011 02:14 |
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Their holdings are (or would quickly be transferred to at the slightest sign of serious trouble) in swiss bank accounts. You are free to "not recognize" them all you want. Do you really think that most rich people just have billions sitting around in bank accounts? Money is tied up in investments, it's pretty rare for someone to go straight cash at that level (granted, it does happen, but it's not the norm) MeLKoR posted:I don't understand what you're saying. Money is money, just because you/your country don't "recognize it's value" whatever that means there's an entire world that would. There are not enough commodities available for the wealth to be transferred into them. I think you have a pretty weak understanding of the global economy, money is much more abstract than you seem to believe.
|
| # ¿ Nov 22, 2011 14:53 |
|
|
Factor_VIII posted:That wouldn't be necessary though. Unless there was a global revolution of the proletariat, even if there was a revolution in a few countries, people who keep their wealth in offshores wouldn't be that affected and wouldn't need to convert their wealth into commodities. Unless someone set up revolutionary committees that blocked travel out of the country and then rounded up and shot everyone that was rich I guess. If the global economy takes a poo poo (and trust me, it would in the case of a "revolution") no amount of offshore bank accounts are going to preserve your wealth. Nothing has a static value, including offshore bank accounts (which honestly are pretty worthless in the face of global economic collapse)
|
| # ¿ Nov 22, 2011 16:53 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:You have a pretty weak understanding if you don't grasp that commodities will take practically any amount of cash. Who said anything about cash? I thought we were talking about wealth. shots shots shots posted:A true global economic crisis/vanguard socialist revolution means all bets are off, but the possibility is essentially zero. The most likely thing we will see is standard government overthrow with lynchmobs. The problem won't be finding a place to take off from it will be finding a place to land.
|
| # ¿ Nov 22, 2011 17:52 |
|
|
Factor_VIII posted:Are you assuming a complete collapse of civilization? Because even during the Great Depression things didn't get that bad. I'm not assuming a complete collapse of civilization, although it most certainly will be worse than the Great Depression. Why wouldn't it be? Not only do we have ridiculous financial issues but we have a host of other global issues that the Great Depression never had including Nuclear proliferation, resource shortages (fresh water, liquid fuels, etc.) and climate change. What exactly do you think will happen if you don't mind me asking? shots shots shots posted:The nearest neutral country? I'm aware it's not a realistic risk-planning scenario, sort of like nuclear terrorism. That doesn't make it any less possible or realistic an outcome of the current events. I don't really see a resolution to the current global issues we face that doesn't involve some sort of major conflict between nuclear powers. I'm not saying full out nuclear war will break out but I fully expect a nuclear weapon to be used on people (whether it's by governments or other entities is up for debate) in the next 20 years. Typo posted:Oh god here comes Zach's apocalypse thing he posts in every thread again I find it amusing that people view my positions as apocalyptic. Really shows how attached we are to this socioeconomic paradigm. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at Nov 22, 2011 around 18:20 |
| # ¿ Nov 22, 2011 18:14 |
|
|
shots shots shots posted:Say something extremely unlikely happens and there is a huge global conflagration. Why is it going to be some sort of democratic wealth redistributive revolution instead of RAHOWA or nationalistic sentiment that leads to protracted world war? A democratic wealth redistributive revolution is what I would like to see happen, not what I think will happen. Both of the latter scenarios are more realistic in my eyes (in fact in my previous posts I said I think nuclear weapons will probably be deployed in the coming decades) meanolmrcloud posted:This is not going to happen. Please stop. Very compelling a lovely poster fucked around with this message at Nov 22, 2011 around 19:45 |
| # ¿ Nov 22, 2011 18:23 |
|
|
Small White Dragon posted:We had the dustbowl in the Great Depression. Yes, which was a result of our terrible agricultural practices. I don't think it qualifies as "climate change" nor is it anywhere near as serious or threatening (which is saying a lot, because the dust bowl was terrible)
|
| # ¿ Nov 24, 2011 03:38 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:I legitimately have trouble understanding this point. Why is the US in a "bad and unsustainable place" when it is currently the prime market for bonds in the world? Why do people insist on creating solutions to problems that just don't exist? If the market changes and our rates start to inch up, then fine, but otherwise we have enough problems without focusing on ones that don't exist. What makes you so sure that the rates will inch if the market changes?
|
| # ¿ Nov 26, 2011 15:19 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:Uh, our borrowing rates increasing is the market changing. Yeah, I'm saying what makes you so sure they will "inch" as opposed to say, "skyrocket"
|
| # ¿ Nov 27, 2011 00:54 |
|
|
Beef posted:Strange graph, Karel van Miert has been dead for a while now, and he was a devout socialist. To be fair, he's a borderline conspiracy theorist investor. quote:As far blogs. The usual Zerohedge.TF. ibankcoin. But I pay attention to TOS casual chat. These will make you alot of money if you can correlate rumors with movements in FX before the actual news breaks. Seriously, he invests in foreign exchange based on rumors from a chat room. I wouldn't hold him to that high of a standard, think of him as a colorful retelling of whatever's popular on ZeroHedge.
|
| # ¿ Dec 7, 2011 15:01 |
|
|
daslog posted:Are you from Greece? I know this is easy for me to say, but I'd get out permanently if I was you. Greece is in for 20 years of hell. As opposed to the butterflies and sunshine that the rest of Europe has to look forward to over the next twenty years. Oh wait.
|
| # ¿ Dec 28, 2011 21:11 |
|
|
daslog posted:Tue, but it's still better than Greece. Maybe? I'm not calling winners and losers until the cards have all been played.
|
| # ¿ Dec 28, 2011 22:55 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Well if you want to starting judging people's or nations then I think it's fair add Greece to you're poo poo list. If Enron is a bad company for cooking the books and imploding then Greece is a bad country for doing the same. Similarly, we should blame the executives of Greece (like the executives of Enron who were obviously the ones at fault), not the people(in your analogy, the employees). Here let me clue you in on something. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at Jan 8, 2012 around 00:37 |
| # ¿ Jan 8, 2012 00:35 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:If anyone is in doubt about whether or not the European politicians are well-intentioned but misguided, it's math like this, and the huge pay cuts and the huge austerity cuts in general and on and on and on that just very simply does not add up. Anyone who would take any kind of time to go through the numbers can tell you it's never going to make things better. To be well-intentioned and pushing for these measures at this point you have to be in the top 100 of colossal morons on the planet. Do you really think it's that likely that the politicians are all "well-intentioned" and just happen to all also be in the top 100 of colossal morons? You give them way too much credit. There's nothing to see here more than the "elite" trying to get theirs and protect their spots on top of society. If you still believe their intentions are pure after all we've seen over the past forever I don't really know what to tell you. You don't get to be a politician in the upper echelons of government without being willing to sell out to get votes/money/support. "Well-intentioned" politicians don't rise to the top, only those willing to do "what it takes".
|
| # ¿ Feb 6, 2012 23:24 |
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:The problem is that nobody is really putting across an alternative course of action. Hmm, these things don't add up. It's almost as if there's a gigantic corrupt power structure preventing any change that would solve problems as opposed to make them worse. There are plenty of politicans putting across alternative courses of action. "political impossibility" is political speak for "rich people don't want it". Impossible is definitely not the right word, must be fought for would be a better description.
|
| # ¿ Feb 7, 2012 22:37 |
|
|
UberJew posted:They can't default. There is no legal structure to allow for a country to declare bankruptcy. They can't even get rid of their debt by leaving the eurozone and issuing their own currency in quantity because the debt is denominated in euros. I mean, they can default. They can tell everyone to gently caress off. It's not going to really fix things or make it better, but there doesn't need to be a defined legal structure for something to happen. What people don't realize is that there IS an end-game to austerity and making GBS threads on the poor/working people in a country. This idea that we are somehow past the point where people will take to the streets violently if their way of life is threatened is a myth. quote:Well in this case the specific rich people who don't want it are the german banks. It goes much deeper than that. There are no economic islands any more and it's silly to point at german banks and blame them for this. It's much bigger than one small group of banks (which for the record are interconnected with many other financial institutions around the world who don't want to see those banks experience any kind of financial hardship)
|
| # ¿ Feb 7, 2012 22:55 |
|
|
Spazzle posted:Do we have any reason to believe those Greek statistics are meaningful or accurately report actual labor? Did you by chance listen to the recent This American Life on the European debt crisis? I ask because they talk to some of the people who work in the Greek statisticians office and just...  at the guy they interview.If anyone else is interested: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/rad...inental-breakup quote:If you're like us, when the words "European debt crisis" pop up in the news you feel a little worried, and a little like taking a nap. Turns out, there's a story behind this story. One that's filled with guilt, and drama, and betrayal, and 100-year-old dreams come true. Alex Blumberg of Planet Money guest hosts. A decent overview for the uninformed, although it's a pretty light analysis (that being said, what can you expect from a 50 minute radio show made for people who know nothing about it)
|
| # ¿ Feb 8, 2012 13:37 |
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:They are OECD statistics, and yes. They grant open access to their raw data. A lot of Greeks who are lucky enough to have a job work a lot. I don't know what the situation is exactly today but they have a history of lying about those statistics (which was the trigger event for their "debt crisis") - a revision of their deficit from 6% to 12% overnight in 2009. This American Life interviews one of those statisticians and he basically refuses to answer how it happened.
|
| # ¿ Feb 8, 2012 13:40 |
|
|
rscott posted:I think the mentality of painting capitalists broadly with the "gently caress you got mine" brush has it's uses, but it makes more sense to me that most politicians think they're doing right within the narrow confines of their world view. Most of them don't consciously think, "this will gently caress over the people of my country but oh well I've got a villa in Ibiza and a Porsche so welp". The fact that they don't think critically about their viewpoints and ideologies makes these kind of decisions far easier on their consciences. Of course. Not only that, the political system selects those only willing to not think critically about their viewpoints and ideologies. You don't get to be a politician unless you "play ball" with those in power and thus we end up with all politicians being willing to do so. It doesn't matter how obvious it is that they are loving around for the benefit of those with control, if they were to stop they would lose power. Inertia of the existing political system and all that. VanSandman posted:Surely some of them care about actual governing. If I was a politician, I'd rather have a legacy of "did good poo poo" rather than "got drat rich" Have you ever read a political memoir? This is what they do think. The getting drat rich is just a byproduct of being such an awesome person, plus, most politicans are already really wealthy before they're elected to office. Remember, the most overrepresented group in elected officials are the wealthy.
|
| # ¿ Feb 15, 2012 01:48 |
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I wanted to link this, but didn't in fear of getting a huge kick in the rear end for it. Seems like Farage isn't exactly that well tolerated here. By who? I'd say his perspective is the most common one on these forums. namesake posted:UKIP (his party) is libertarian. He's only complaining because it's a EU mandated exploitation. Ahh, yeah, looked them up on wikipedia...
a lovely poster fucked around with this message at Feb 15, 2012 around 18:34 |
| # ¿ Feb 15, 2012 18:18 |
|
|
karthun posted:Federal Prosecutors are for the most part politically independent of the rest of the Federal government. They do not require nor care about any "political order" to fulfill their duties. Hahaha oh man you actually believe this? So I guess you think the hilarious "justice" doled out by the SEC/DoJ towards large corporations is fair? That maybe some of the gigantic campaign donations they make every year aren't greasing the wheels for them a little bit? Beyond that, US Attorneys are APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT. How can they possibly be politically independent? edit. I realize this thread is primarily about Europe, I just couldn't believe someone had the gall to claim that Federal Prosecutors are somehow politically independent of their bosses and the huge corporations that ensure the jobs of those bosses. karthun posted:If you want to make the argument that the US Attorneys are not the chief law enforcement officers for their districts go right ahead, but do it in a different thread. You will be wrong, but you will be wrong somewhere else. That actually wasn't my argument, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd offer this as some kind of rebuttle. I'm not saying there's a panel of people who decide whether or not cases come to fruition. I'm saying that the political process is wholly responsible for who gets there and how their job is carried out so claiming that our law enforcement is somehow "politically neutral" is just silly. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at Feb 26, 2012 around 01:25 |
| # ¿ Feb 25, 2012 23:13 |
|
|
Would anyone be able to give some thoughts on http://www.eudebtwriteoff.com/ I've seen this linked before and I'm assuming that there's a reason that this option isn't spoken of. What is it?
|
| # ¿ Mar 9, 2012 08:58 |
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Because Greece doesn't owe to France, but to French banks. Wouldn't a writeoff that massive allow for countries like France (who would be left without a debt) the issue new bonds at lower rates? Wouldn't this liquidity enable larger bailouts? My question isn't specific to Greece (who actually wouldn't gain much by this writeoff)
|
| # ¿ Mar 9, 2012 10:02 |
|
|
daslog posted:Why are people so fixated on who's fault this is? Does that even matter at this point? Because it gives people who support austerity measures a way to say "they deserve it".
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2012 13:00 |
|
|
Whole Milk posted:This is a good summary of why the country would turn into poo poo if Hollande actually implemented his plan: This is the same neoliberal bullshit that get spewed elsewhere but never seems to materialize. quote:The most debilitating effects of all this may be long-term. Brainy youngsters have choices. They can find jobs or set up companies more or less anywhere. The ambitious will risk their savings, borrow money and toil punishing hours to create new businesses that will, in turn, create jobs and new products. But they will not do this for 25% (or less) of the fruits of their labour. Zurich is only an hour away; French politics seem stuck in another century. We've all heard the *horror* stories about how firms and individuals are just ready to leave the minute you raise taxes. Somehow Sweden has still managed to not implode and massive tax migrations these articles always hint at have yet to exist.
|
| # ¿ Jun 26, 2012 21:23 |
|
|
Wood gas generators cannot sustain any real amount of auto infrastructure.
|
| # ¿ Aug 9, 2012 01:35 |
|
|
Herman Merman posted:If by "any real amount of auto infrastructure" you mean American-style suburbia then no. But they can be (and, during and after WWII in Europe, were) used to run the critical transport needs of a society. I think you'll find that the "critical transport needs" of a society like America are going to be much more demanding than what wood gas generators can provide. Not to mention that you're just moving to a dirtier fuel that's only going to make other problems like climate change and deforestation worse.
|
| # ¿ Aug 10, 2012 22:48 |
|
|
Boner Slam posted:Since socialism is often defined as literally "the state where everything works and no tradeoffs are needed", I'd like you to share where you've literally heard this definition
|
| # ¿ Oct 31, 2012 16:42 |
|
|
shodanjr_gr posted:The issue is not seeking a comfortable life or secure employment. The issue with the mentality I encountered in Greece is the EXPECTATION that this comfort and security (and the jobs posts that provide it) is the responsibility (in a reciprocal way, since the people voted for them) of whatever government is in power at the time. Is there something wrong with this? What do you think the job of government should be? I think ensuring everyone has a home, food, access to clean water, healthcare, education, etc is exactly what the government SHOULD be doing. shodanjr_gr posted:A society needs teachers, nurses, doctors and civil workers to function properly. But they have to be doing their jobs and they have to be held accountable for them. The issue is that the people who caused this crisis aren't being held accountable. Hint, it wasn't the teachers who crashed the Greek economy.
|
| # ¿ Nov 6, 2012 21:28 |
|
|
shodanjr_gr posted:Yes, the government should be doing those things. The government should not be handing out JOBS (that they cant pay for or do not NEED in the first place) to people (who aren't qualified to hold them) in massive numbers under a regime that prevented people being fired for being incompetent or corrupt. Between the concept of a rational "social safety" net and what ended up happening in Greece for the past 20 years or so, there is a HUGE gap. Why shouldn't the government be ensuring employment as well as the other things I've listed? quote:Both the people and the politicians are accountable. The politicians gave hand outs and jobs in exchange for votes. The people happily gave their vote to the politicians who provided them with the best "deal" in terms of hand outs, job placements and favors. This actually isn't how democracy works. "Well, they voted for it" is one of the worst defenses of politicians I see bandied about. Downright fraud occurred and those in power(the ones who committed the fraud) are not going to prosecute themselves.
|
| # ¿ Nov 6, 2012 21:40 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:To be fair, Keynesian economics has also failed since capitalism doesn't work. What do you mean doesn't work? Does Keynesian economics say anything about the long term sustainability of capitalism?
|
| # ¿ Mar 18, 2013 19:12 |
|
|
daslog posted:It seems to me that Portugal's wages need to go down, not up. You can't pay your workers as much as Germany does if they are not as productive as Germany's are. Maybe you can't get workers as productive as German ones without compensating them similarly.
|
| # ¿ Mar 19, 2013 20:11 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:To actually sustain this though, doesn't the EU need to essentially federalize the Eurozone currency so there's a constant transfer of payments between nations?(I mean really, don't they need to do this anyways, a currency union without a fiscal union is pretty asinine) I don't know Portugal's financial system as well as I do the one here (the US) but something tells me if it's anything like it is here that there is more than enough money to go around at the top to redistribute downwards without transferring anything to or from Portugal.
|
| # ¿ Mar 19, 2013 20:16 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 26, 2013 01:52 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I guess the question then is what is the end goal? I mean inevitably it has to happen right? Or do we just keep forcing austerity on Spain and Greece for the next century? There is no end goal. Policy makers are so set on surviving six months no time or planning goes in to creating an end goal in any sense of the word. What they'll give you are a bunch of lovely charts that might give the impression there's a long term goal which we'll have a good laugh about and they'll come back and say "oops" in a few years.
|
| # ¿ Mar 19, 2013 21:28 |
|
