On May 11 2011 04:47 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote: It amazes me how people continue to fail to realize the obvious (?) REASON of the whole economic problem which is non other than the capitalistic system in itself. The way it's structured, the way it's supposed to work, the way it's everywhere in our lives today is the one creating the crisis of the past and the one today and the ones that have yet to come, here in europe or there in the usa or wherever else will follow (I won't even touch on it being the reason for the wars that are taking place everywhere or the crimes that are taking part because of capitalism in africa and 3rd world countries in general or environmental destruction or all kinds of other issues). Really, it doesn't take that much effort to look around and find a surplus of articles and books and documentaries on this subject and help one reach this conclusion.
I'm not saying ANYTHING about possible/impossible solutions and alternatives and whatever because it's a whole other deal.
I'm talking about reasoning of the crisis. And even though tax invasions and political corruptions and scandals and cultural differences and human evil genes or whatever else might be also contributing to whole deal, it's not hard to see the real MAJOR cause of it.
Please take the time and watch the following video where academic David Harvey puts it very well into words and the RSA Animate crew does a hell of a job to present his whole speech through lovely eye-candy drawings
the EU achieved peace in a continent where in its previous history there was always war (including the 2 World Wars)
that alone makes the EU good enough for me.
central banking and all that comes with it is something completely different. Smaller nations will be enslaved by it in the same way like bigger countries (or unions) will.
That claim is absurd and laughable. I could just as easily say it was Nato, or the UN, or the struggle against the Soviet Union, or that it was simply post WW2 politics in general. The EU wasn't really even a significant political entity until the 90's or so. If the EU disappeared today, would there even be a risk of war in Europe? No.
I am not sure you can understand this as you are not European, but the EU ideal really does matter for a lot of Europeans and has done so since the 70s. It greatly increases cohesion and there is pride to be found in building something that can finally unite our continent. Although I hold an Italian passport, what I think of what my rights are and what my place in the world is I regard myself as a European citizen first, and an Italian after.
Also, as mentioned by another poster, the greatest factor you can bring to the table in order to avoid war is economic unity and trade. Without the EU there would be a far higher risk of war in Europe, yes.
I was born in Germany to a German mother. I am technically an EU citizen. I understand the pride you speak of. It is rooted in nationalism and will lead to a totalitarian state. It will unite the continent alright, under the tyranny of a select few. Centralized governments, alienated from those they govern, and claiming great, wonderful causes that will bring us all to prosperity, have and always will be the bane of liberty in this world. I am not sure you can understand this as you are not an individual. Although I hold an American passport, I regard myself as a member of my family first, and my community after.
Regardless of where you were born or which passport you hold, my point is that you have not grown up in Europe nor you live in Europe. Therefore, you simply can't understand what I am talking about, a fact that is also clear when you claim that the "pride" I am talking about is "rooted in nationalism". It is exactly the opposite: you gain a new "level" of belonging, not just to your country but to Europe as well. When I travel to Germany, France and to a certain extent even here in the UK I see other Europeans as brothers, as we live by the same rules and have the same rights. Looking at Europe's history, that is an absolutely magnificent achievement. As for your "you are not an individual" stuff, I am not in the mood to feed your trolling attempts. I hope I made myself clear.
On June 28 2011 22:41 Jameser wrote: I don't want to sound fascist or speak in a derogatory fashion towards greek people <3 but the EU has been attempting to grow far too quickly, you cannot expect a poorly developed country like greece to do well when put in such close competition with "northern" europe...
You do realize Greece was in the EU 14 years before Sweden, right?
I'm well aware however when I said "grow too fast" that means include countries that are not yet ready. The problem is only partially due to a young developing beurocratic system and more heavily due to immature economies, don't you agree?
so the point in time a country joins has much less to do with the issue than the state of the country when it joins, and greece was not ready
On June 30 2011 00:31 Cyba wrote: That's the entire point since it uses the euro as well the euro will loose some of its value not only in Greece but everywhere.
This would only be true if Greece were...like the size of USA or Russia. Greece is WAY too small to have any significant influence on the Euro. Unless you bring in the confidence of financial markets, say, they expect Spain, Ireland, Italy etc. to also go down.
Incorrect. The whole point is that the European Central bank, the French/German/UK governments and private investors through out the Eurozone are all holding significant amounts of Greek paper. What do you think would happen if Greece refuses to pay Germany the 60 billion Euro's they owe them? All of a sudden future revenue is lost, size of economy shrinks, euro gets weaker. Europes exposure to Greece is HUGE, several billion euros.
I know a lot of people in this thread are saying its Greece's fault, but in the end the Greek people didn't vote for any of this - you can't put millions of the Greek public in the same boat as a few politicians who negotiated these packages and implemented fiscal policy that lead to this situation in the first place.
Yeah the Greek public only voted to get paid with borrowed money of the politicians.
They didn't vote for the austerity of not getting paid with borrowed money.
They also didn't vote for the part where they need to pay back borrowed money.
The banks themselves are at fault for lending to country with such a poor balance sheet. Ahhh, Greece and the Banks - they deserve each other. Just leave the rest of us out of this mess. OK?
And all this coming from a resident of the United States? Wow. Do you think even 1% of your Countries citizens understand the fiscal policy they vote for? Not everyone is an economist. I know for a fact 90% of the United Kingdom have no idea that the international debt markets keep our public finances ticking over, and the same is probably true of most countries.
You can't really blame people who are kept in the dark by their government.
On June 30 2011 00:55 TanGeng wrote: The banks themselves are at fault for lending to country with such a poor balance sheet. Ahhh, Greece and the Banks - they deserve each other. Just leave the rest of us out of this mess. OK?
Hey buddy guess who has the tax evasion culture? Guess who hired Goldman Sachs?
Tax evasion culture is part of a country/government's poor balance sheet. Banks should have known all about it. They also should be doing their own audits.
Unless you have further complaints, I stand by my statement that Greece and the banks deserve each other.
On June 30 2011 00:59 TrainSamurai wrote: Hey buddy guess who has the tax evasion culture? Guess who hired Goldman Sachs?
So who hired Goldman? What specific thing are you quipping about? And yeah Greece probably deserves Goldman too.
Yea I was confused. You see what happened was the Greeks expect the government to somehow function without their tax( or most of it). After a while the government hired Goldman Sachs to make sure everything was looking fine and dandy. Greece scammed everyone.
Ok, that's ok. I was wondering if there was more Goldman involvement than I knew about. Greece's bit of "creative accounting practices" and Goldman's part should be basic knowledge, IMO.
A counterpoint to heaping all the blame on Greece is that the banks knew about it and still lent them money anyways. If Greece was conning the banks, the banks were willing victims, too.
A counterpoint to heaping all the blame on Greece is that the banks knew about it and still lent them money anyways. If Greece was conning the banks, the banks were willing victims, too
.
And know they make us citizens lend Greece money to pay the banks... Its so funny, know banks will never care about ratings since they know, some one will always bail someone out. I hope the next country in line defaults, even if it is Portugal, banks need to get nervous when they lend money, they must know that there is always a risk,
A counterpoint to heaping all the blame on Greece is that the banks knew about it and still lent them money anyways. If Greece was conning the banks, the banks were willing victims, too
.
And know they make us citizens lend Greece money to pay the banks... Its so funny, know banks will never care about ratings since they know, some one will always bail someone out. I hope the next country in line defaults, even if it is Portugal, banks need to get nervous when they lend money, they must know that there is always a risk,
If you just knew what you are saying... Last time they "just let everyone default" was in the Great Depression.
On May 11 2011 04:47 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote: It amazes me how people continue to fail to realize the obvious (?) REASON of the whole economic problem which is non other than the capitalistic system in itself. The way it's structured, the way it's supposed to work, the way it's everywhere in our lives today is the one creating the crisis of the past and the one today and the ones that have yet to come, here in europe or there in the usa or wherever else will follow (I won't even touch on it being the reason for the wars that are taking place everywhere or the crimes that are taking part because of capitalism in africa and 3rd world countries in general or environmental destruction or all kinds of other issues). Really, it doesn't take that much effort to look around and find a surplus of articles and books and documentaries on this subject and help one reach this conclusion.
I'm not saying ANYTHING about possible/impossible solutions and alternatives and whatever because it's a whole other deal.
I'm talking about reasoning of the crisis. And even though tax invasions and political corruptions and scandals and cultural differences and human evil genes or whatever else might be also contributing to whole deal, it's not hard to see the real MAJOR cause of it.
Please take the time and watch the following video where academic David Harvey puts it very well into words and the RSA Animate crew does a hell of a job to present his whole speech through lovely eye-candy drawings
This "academic" is a professor for anthropology and a marxist. Not an economist. The video is indeed well drawn, the arguments are as old as they are flawed.
The video is indeed well drawn, the arguments are as old as they are flawed.
Can you please share your thoughts for discussion?
A couple thoughts:
At the beginning, it quickly glossed over the "regulator asleep at the wheel." This part should be the most important factor since society has some control over it. Nearly all of the failure is concentrated in the banks, government regulators, and the economists that guide them.
Systemic risk is a by-word for build up of moral hazard and complacency. If too-big-to-fail failed, there'd be more caution and less systemic risk.
In the middle part, the unions overplayed their hand and it prompted the outsourcing and shift of manufacturing to developing countries like China and India. The last 30 years is not "wage repression" but an unprecedented enrichment of the people of those two countries. The unions cannot expect to get paid more for the same amount of work without any innovation or creativity in this dynamic economy.
In the last part, it conflates entrepreneurial genius with financial genius and I think it's done intentionally. Paying attention and satisfying the needs of customers at an acceptable price point is extremely valuable to society and the profits thereof are justified. "Financial genius" related to design of confusing and opaque financial instruments is much less so - never mind the fact that they should have lost a lot of money if bailouts hadn't happened.
The last confusion is a critical weakness of the video. Anti-capitalist societies are weakest in fostering entrepreneurial talent, and not being able to identify it or make distinctions from the financial sector suggests a warped understand of markets and how it is an integral part of society.
As an added comment, financial ingenuity that matches skillful entrepreneurs, with capital, and labor to produce a products, such as ipads and computers, that society wants is extremely valuable. If financiers are successful, they deserve to be abundantly rewarded. That the professor reacts negatively to the size of renumeration is either out of envy or a lack of respect for what the financiers do. But as much as financiers can be wildly successful, they can also be disastrous failures. The proper reaction to the bonuses of financiers is that the corporations that paid them out are still around considering all the financial disasters that they were party to. Another problem I have with Marxist critique along the lines of its blind spot for entrepreneurial talent shows up in the obsession with manufacturing and its contributions to GDP. If today were the 1890, we would be able to make the same observation about the precipitous decline of agriculture as a share of economic output. Looking back at 1890 from the present day, agriculture never regained its dominance of the economy and continues to decline. That is progress and that is how the world economy is changing and evolving. I don't think it's valuable to be stuck in the past and yearn of the "good ol' days" when manufacturing and agriculture contributed larger shares of society's wealth.
On March 01 2010 15:03 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Greece can't pay its debts. So the EU, especially Germany, is wondering what to do. I hadn't thought too much about this and didn't think that it was a big deal. But then I read this article that claims that without precise actions the "euro may not survive." The article also mentions that even if the Greek crisis is dealt with that is only the beginning of the problem because there is a lot of debt in other countries, especially Spain, as well. So, please tell me how you see this difficult time in Europe playing itself out.
Mod Edit: This is serious business. Anyone who posts trash in this thread will be banned.
I was just in Greece and if what they say is true about what will happen if the current course is not altered then the EU is truly doomed. Parts of Europe need to change and they are resisting. I look forward to travelling when the EU does plummet or starts to decline like the dollar here has, that has its advantages..
At the beginning, it quickly glossed over the "regulator asleep at the wheel." This part should be the most important factor since society has some control over it. Nearly all of the failure is concentrated in the banks, government regulators, and the economists that guide them.
Agree with you in there, the regulator of today has almost no power, or is always in the 'sac' of someone.
Systemic risk is a by-word for build up of moral hazard and complacency. If too-big-to-fail failed, there'd be more caution and less systemic risk
Thats why I think the EU should just allow Greece to default.
In the middle part, the unions overplayed their hand and it prompted the outsourcing and shift of manufacturing to developing countries like China and India. The last 30 years is not "wage repression" but an unprecedented enrichment of the people of those two countries. The unions cannot expect to get paid more for the same amount of work without any innovation or creativity in this dynamic economy.
Can you give your definition of innovation? The problem is that the workers are the ones doing all the work, but are also getting less money. And when big companies fail, they get bailed out, and the CEO's do not lose any money, don't you find that unfair?
Anti-capitalist societies are weakest in fostering entrepreneurial talent
Yes, while capitalist societies only value money and short terms revenue. There must be a middle ground.
On June 30 2011 09:45 TanGeng wrote: Anti-capitalist societies are weakest in fostering entrepreneurial talent, and not being able to identify it or make distinctions from the financial sector suggests a warped understand of markets and how it is an integral part of society.
You give absolutely no evidence for this, and that's not quite true. Some of the most important innovations are not even remotely due to a desire to capitalize on them. Telephone, computer, internet, the entire open source movement, most medical research, anything that comes out of most universities...
besides, you need to define what 'entrepeneurial talent' actually means-- if you are defining it as something like 'those who are able to create capitalization of innovation', then its a circular definition since it assumes capitalism a priori.
I'd look at our entire scientific framework as evidence that innovation/scientific/technological progress happen independently of capitalization, and that monetary reward is not necessarily a strong motivator for innovation.
Hell I'm an academic because I feel its one of the ways I can contribute most to society.
Generally, the motivation to improve society, if your needs are met seems to my eyes anyways to be stronger than the desire to acquire goods. I'm sure money-motivated people would disagree. But some would call that selfish and blind, and caused fundamentally of a fear of not having an adequate living-- but where does this fear come from?
I dont like to live in a society thats compulsive about acquiring things, its boring and icky. People/society fixated on acquisition to my eye generally lack depth.
But this whole argument regarding innovation misses his point regarding financialization, which is that financial innovation is largely responsible for wealth generation (which is predominantly skewed towards the very wealthy to begin with) in the past 10 years, and that capitalism itself is structurally flawed and the mathematical outcome is an extremely unstable economy and recurrent crises.
Theres ample evidence of this stretching back throughout the entirety of this century.
On June 30 2011 10:10 chickenhawk wrote: Can you give your definition of innovation? The problem is that the workers are the ones doing all the work, but are also getting less money. And when big companies fail, they get bailed out, and the CEO's do not lose any money, don't you find that unfair?
Anti-capitalist societies are weakest in fostering entrepreneurial talent
Yes, while capitalist societies only value money and short terms revenue. There must be a middle ground.
Short term revenue ultimately makes their account books work for financiers. They'll take the quick profit but will also take the long-term risk with an entrepreneur that has a good vision or idea. The profit motive is the driving force behind the financial industry and that comes with its pros and cons.
The bailouts are unfair - especially for financial institutions. Some of the things the financial CEOs did was criminal. Frankly they should be in jail. But all of them are unfair even when they go to unions through companies like GM and Ford.
I think what we are seeing is that the modern economy places a greater value on creativity. Things like designing cars, gadgets, clothing, software, and the such. The assembly line worker is either outsourced or optimized out by automation and computerization.
As a sidenote, a lot of the flaws we see in the markets reflect social values of society. It'd be a better world if we emphasized wealth accumulation less and promoted philanthropy and generosity more. It'd be a better society if helping a neighbor was easier and rewarded greater recognition.
@Tangeng would not then the most appropriate way to encourage a more equitable society be to structure it in a way that eliminated the ability for greed to empower itself? Capitalism rewards greed with increased power/influence, and does not reward altruistic action. Somehow having a capitalist system, which institutionally rewards greed, but simultaneously telling people 'but donate some profits please', seems less effective.
On June 30 2011 10:20 caradoc wrote: You give absolutely no evidence for this, and that's not quite true. Some of the most important innovations are not even remotely due to a desire to capitalize on them. Telephone, computer, internet, the entire open source movement, most medical research, anything that comes out of most universities...
Discovery isn't even half of it. Creating the market. Understanding the market. Designing the product. Meeting price points. All that is the entrepreneurial talent. They also have to acquire financing and capital and need to be able to make a good pitch to financiers.
There is a bit of an obsession with money. That is because it is the easiest way to gather all the necessary resource and talent to make the entrepreneurial vision possible. It's usually how complete strangers with no prior relationship can collaborate with each other.
But it's not the only way. Open source movement is exciting. The currency there appears to be more about community than about money. These are non-monetary transactions and the fact that it is motivates innovation is a great insight on society and sub-societies.
On June 30 2011 10:38 caradoc wrote: @Tangeng would not then the most appropriate way to encourage a more equitable society be to structure it in a way that eliminated the ability for greed to empower itself? Capitalism rewards greed with increased power/influence, and does not reward altruistic action. Somehow having a capitalist system, which institutionally rewards greed, but simultaneously telling people 'but donate some profits please', seems less effective.
Greed is an ugly characteristic and the community can punish if the word gets around. It can also put off potential contacts and ruin relationships. Screwing other people doesn't get you invited to parties.
What I am trying to say is that society should be less materialistic, and appreciate altruism more. The other part I'm trying to think about is how you can differentiate between profits that arrive via greedy behavior verse well deserved entrepreneurial talent.
EPT
