EPT
One of the best things about this forum has always been that we can get perspectives not represented in normal media channels, this is another example of that. European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 119
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28649 Posts
One of the best things about this forum has always been that we can get perspectives not represented in normal media channels, this is another example of that. | ||
|
Aceace
Turkey1305 Posts
On June 09 2015 16:40 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: You are saying that it's likely an ISIS truck and Erdogan had always claimed he didn't let weapons go through the country, and that this truck actually did get through or at least is evidence that ISIS thinks they can get weapons through, but after this video was exposed, Erdogan used the excuse that it was to defend Turkish people in Syria? Is that correct? Exactly!!!! | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On June 09 2015 01:26 Taguchi wrote: Sorry I cannot take your post seriously after this. I know you like to indulge in philosophical morality debates but if you're this uninformed about the subject... there's just no point. Lehman collapse was worth 2 bn and it triggered a chain reaction in financial institutions the world over, bringing about the Eurocrisis, among others (prime example: Ireland, an otherwise model of economic governance, had to bailout its own banks that suffered because of the financial crisis, which caused Ireland itself to become insolvent in the short term and thus require troika assistance). Greek collapse in 2010 would've been worth tens of billions in the short term and trigger multiples of that in CDS. German and French banks were the major holders of Greek debt at the time. Their bailout was of the essence if a repeat of Lehman was to be avoided - but politically unmanageable since taxpayers would have to pick up the (quite large) tab. Much easier to blame the lazy Greeks for everything (instead of blaming them for a majority of things, mostly electing corrupt politicians that drove the country to the wall). You can find the information easily enough, if you care to do so. edit: Also glad for my Turkish neighbors that decided against getting themselves a new sultan Hopefully Cyprus gets solved too, there's some good vibe coming from there these days!On the latter of your fallacy, it is not that your philosophy is wrong, but the ahistoricity of your thinking, in which you mistake what merely appears to be subjectively plausible for what really happens. The German parliamentary debates on the Greek bailouts are public information, and I would recommend anyone interested on the real atmosphere of German decision-making to avail themselves of them, and do a little research, rather than fall on self-serving rationalisations (hint: there were no polemical scapegoatings of Greeks in them; those debates were future-looking and action-oriented.) In reality, Taiguchi's polemic about banking bailouts is not much different than the position of the Linke during those debates, and to a less extent, the SPD. However, the government must be allowed to speak for itself, and not be supposed to possess the motives ascribed to them by their opponents. If Greece had defaulted in 2010, the German banks would have been exposed to the sum of approximately 40 billion dollars, considerably less than public exposure today. They would have had recourse to the Finanzmarktstabilizierungsfonds which would have seen a partial write-down of assets, with the government bailing out the remainder, and the banks would have been partially nationalised. The German taxpayer bailing out failing banks was not new; the taxpayers of Saxony were charged nearly 700 Euro per capita for the bailout of Sachsen LB at the beginning of the crisis. Quite apart from what the German government's motives were, are the motives of Taiguchi himself. In 2015, he is blaming the German government for doing what he asked them to do in 2010, and he is not taking any blame for that. Anthony is accusing Brutus of speaking with a silver tongue! As he himself said, "much easier to blame the X for everything;" foreign governments, politicians, your own electorate, so long as you're not pointing the finger at yourself. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10694 Posts
 ) | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
On June 09 2015 16:40 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: You are saying that it's likely an ISIS truck and Erdogan had always claimed he didn't let weapons go through the country, and that this truck actually did get through or at least is evidence that ISIS thinks they can get weapons through, but after this video was exposed, Erdogan used the excuse that it was to defend Turkish people in Syria? Is that correct? They say trucks stopped around Bab El Hava, a region where El Nusra (syrian al qaeda) controls. There was a leaked picture but i only can translate very beginning of it, blame google for that. This document says they were arming El Nusra members to gain upper hand against Syrian PKK. (PYD) ![[image loading]](http://www.ozgur-gundem.com/common/nuce/images/2013/09//nuce_26092013-190458-1380215098.17.jpg) However, aceace, thank you for your quick response. I really appreciate your time. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
“At least half of Germans, French and Italians say their country should not use military force to defend a NATO ally if attacked by Russia,” the Pew Research Center said it found in its survey, which is based on interviews in 10 nations. (...) The survey is likely to send an unsettling message to Baltic members of the alliance, which have been looking for more assurances from NATO that it will protect them from Russian meddling. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/world/europe/survey-points-to-challenges-nato-faces-over-russia.html?referrer= Now aren't we a bunch of cowards? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On June 10 2015 18:28 warding wrote: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/world/europe/survey-points-to-challenges-nato-faces-over-russia.html?referrer= Now aren't we a bunch of cowards? i'd call that US fear-mongering spilling over into EU. europeans respond to polls based on (their own mostly)history (so if you could add a link to the actual study so we could see its credentials and the questions...). Germany, a critical American ally in the effort to forge a Ukraine peace settlement, was at the other end of the spectrum. Only 38 percent of Germans said that Russia was a danger to neighboring countries aside from Ukraine, and only 29 percent blamed Russia for the violence in Ukraine. the winds start blowing from the east and with a semi-inactive EU, US loses its ground so they start to lobby for war. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11497 Posts
Furthermore, strong support of such an action and the absolute certainty that any attack on any member of the defensive alliance will inevitably result in a major response of all the members is necessary to discourage those attacks. If Putin sees a reasonable way to attack without triggering a NATO response, he will not stop taking more and more Land, this has been a truth for any dictator in history. Thus it must be made exceedingly clear that there is no tolerance for any such actions, at all. I am highly disturbed that there is not a gigantic majority for this position, as it seems to be the only reasonable one. Especially Germans should know that Appeasement of evil dictators only leads to a larger and more devastating conflict later down the line, when they inevitably don't stop their expansion since it has worked for them thus far. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
Who would ever want to fight against the Russians, they have a huge army and atomic rockets, who you? And even more so, who would ever want to die over the question whether Russian-speaking Putin-lovers should keep their passport or get a new one? Like seriously, what the f..? | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On June 10 2015 22:03 lord_nibbler wrote: I sad it in this thread already and I say it again: If a significant number of German troops were ordered to move into Ukraine or Latvia to fight against Russian troops, our streets would be full of non-stop protests. Who would ever want to fight against the Russians, they have a huge army and atomic rockets, who you? And even more so, who would ever want to die over the question whether Russian-speaking Putin-lovers should keep their passport or get a new one? Like seriously, what the f..? They don't speak Russian in neither Ukraine, nor in Latvia... Helping a sovereign country defend itself against an aggressive expansion is kinda the point of a defence pact such as NATO (which Latvia is part of - Ukraine is not). | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On June 10 2015 19:24 Simberto wrote: That is indeed disturbing. I am generally not a friend of war or the military, and am of the firm opinion that especially the current aggressive US wars are neither justifiable nor in any way positive. But a defensive war to protect the sovereignity of an ally against an aggressive dictatorship is one of the few cases where it is not only acceptable, but pretty much the only choice. There should be a strong majority for such an effort, after all, you would hope for such support yourself if you were to be attacked thusly. Furthermore, strong support of such an action and the absolute certainty that any attack on any member of the defensive alliance will inevitably result in a major response of all the members is necessary to discourage those attacks. If Putin sees a reasonable way to attack without triggering a NATO response, he will not stop taking more and more Land, this has been a truth for any dictator in history. Thus it must be made exceedingly clear that there is no tolerance for any such actions, at all. I am highly disturbed that there is not a gigantic majority for this position, as it seems to be the only reasonable one. Especially Germans should know that Appeasement of evil dictators only leads to a larger and more devastating conflict later down the line, when they inevitably don't stop their expansion since it has worked for them thus far. That's actually one of the problem both the EU and NATO will have to deal with sooner or later: it consists of a series of countries who, more often than not, do not feel any connection to each other. I can imagine Italians not seeing the point in them defending Ukrainian or Latvian sovereignty, for instance, and I can't blame them for that either. As a Belgian I probably wouldn't start caring until the Russians actually invaded Germany. It's also not that surprising that after two world wars, which caused the lives of tens of millions of people, very few Europeans are keen to have at it again. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On June 10 2015 22:03 lord_nibbler wrote: I sad it in this thread already and I say it again: If a significant number of German troops were ordered to move into Ukraine or Latvia to fight against Russian troops, our streets would be full of non-stop protests. Who would ever want to fight against the Russians, they have a huge army and atomic rockets, who you? And even more so, who would ever want to die over the question whether Russian-speaking Putin-lovers should keep their passport or get a new one? Like seriously, what the f..? That is the question Russians should ask: "who would ever want to fight against NATO, they have by far the largest and most advanced armed forces and atomic weapons". Instead, they know that many NATO countries lack the spine to do anything about eventual Russian meddling in the Baltics. Baltics who have only small minority Russian populations that enjoy better lives there than they would in Russia. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
| ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
On June 10 2015 18:28 warding wrote: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/world/europe/survey-points-to-challenges-nato-faces-over-russia.html?referrer= Now aren't we a bunch of cowards? if you notice, the people that are the most willing to help a NATO member are the one that would be far from the battlefield (Canada, USA) obviously when you are near the battlefield (eg : europeans) you will be less supportive of such an action anyway it has always been like this - before the war a lot of people are against it, and during the war not so much | ||
|
Narw
Poland884 Posts
Before G-7 Russia tried to heat it up relasing the "black list" of diplomats that are forbidden the entry to Federation, then broke the Minsk meeting, then Heidi Tagliavini resigned from her functions at OSCE and in the meantime whatever Russia paramilitary forces tried to pull off in Marijenka got litterally killed with fire. If Russia tries to military escalate again it won't be cheap and easy. If Putin tried to send a "threat" to West with that attack it failed miserably, G-7 meeting message was clear - we won't accept the proposals of "new order", Yalta II won't happen and postsoviet pro-Russia Ukraine is gone and more sanctions to come. Not sure what Putins options are atm, but they seem to be more and more limited. those two pro Russia states in eastern Ukraine are just not made for existing in peace and Russia is being more and more taxed by trying to support and sustain em. | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
On June 09 2015 23:20 MoltkeWarding wrote: On the latter of your fallacy, it is not that your philosophy is wrong, but the ahistoricity of your thinking, in which you mistake what merely appears to be subjectively plausible for what really happens. The German parliamentary debates on the Greek bailouts are public information, and I would recommend anyone interested on the real atmosphere of German decision-making to avail themselves of them, and do a little research, rather than fall on self-serving rationalisations (hint: there were no polemical scapegoatings of Greeks in them; those debates were future-looking and action-oriented.) In reality, Taiguchi's polemic about banking bailouts is not much different than the position of the Linke during those debates, and to a less extent, the SPD. However, the government must be allowed to speak for itself, and not be supposed to possess the motives ascribed to them by their opponents. If Greece had defaulted in 2010, the German banks would have been exposed to the sum of approximately 40 billion dollars, considerably less than public exposure today. They would have had recourse to the Finanzmarktstabilizierungsfonds which would have seen a partial write-down of assets, with the government bailing out the remainder, and the banks would have been partially nationalised. The German taxpayer bailing out failing banks was not new; the taxpayers of Saxony were charged nearly 700 Euro per capita for the bailout of Sachsen LB at the beginning of the crisis. Quite apart from what the German government's motives were, are the motives of Taiguchi himself. In 2015, he is blaming the German government for doing what he asked them to do in 2010, and he is not taking any blame for that. Anthony is accusing Brutus of speaking with a silver tongue! As he himself said, "much easier to blame the X for everything;" foreign governments, politicians, your own electorate, so long as you're not pointing the finger at yourself. Talking of straw-men... In 2015 I am blaming the German government for advocating for a solution that will not work - what ails my country will not get fixed, quite the opposite, if we go along with current creditor proposals. I understand enough now to realize austerity, under current circumstances, is a pointless endeavor and that, soon enough, we will once again be at the default stage - only more time will have passed, the economy will be even more depressed, people will have gone through even more pain. In 2010, I did not know the cure would not work. The IMF, ECB, EU all said it would work - and all the while they'd be making a tidy profit off those loans, hence the post you dug out. It is that simple. And you grossly underestimate the effects of a Greek collapse in 2010. ![[image loading]](http://www.infodata.ilsole24ore.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/82/2015/02/Esposizione-banche.png) Guess how many dominoes get triggered if Greece defaults on all that money back in 2010. 40 billion? I talked about you grossly underestimating the effects but that does not even begin to cover this. What of the CDS market, secondary and tertiary effects that reach institutions having nothing whatsoever to do with Greek debt? These people got the IMF to actually change its rules concerning debt sustainability so it could lend to Greece (and the first time in IMF history that a programme isn't accompanied by debt relief), it was THAT crucial that the financial collapse was avoided. Guess why 'strict adherence to the rules' is being required now; a financial collapse isn't in the cards anymore because the debt has been offloaded to the public sector. States don't become insolvent because of a (relatively) small hit, they aren't overleveraged banks and they generally don't owe each other much so no domino effect there. Also, kudos on the personal assault. What exactly am I not taking blame for? Not being a macroeconomic expert and being able to foresee that several regional and global institutions were going to make a mess of things? I'm pretty damn sure I didn't vote for the idiots that bankrupted my country - I'm also pretty sure I didn't run for office so perhaps I should shoulder some blame for that too. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
I don't know how much of this is true (the author is a member of To Potami, a rivaling political party, so far from unbiased), but if Syriza really has put its pawns everywhere, it shows that they haven't learned at all. Is it really so hard to grasp that clientelism is bad, and that it is the very thing that has wrecked Greece (and apparently still is)? I'm increasingly getting the feeling that there are some entrenched interests who are blocking reform that would actually benefit the less privileged, and that there is very little political will to actually do something about that. People who claim that austerity is the sole cause of Greece's woes need to take a closer look at how the country has been governed the past four decades. Lifting austerity and pumping more money into Greece will not suddenly turn it into a blooming economy; on the contrary, chances are that the money disappear into the bottomless pit that is Greece's public sector. After all, politicians need to keep their voters happy. I would not be surprised that the main goal of the Trojka's reform demands is to break the public sector's power. Insisting on human rights when handing out pensions is good and all but the money has to come from somewhere. Greece does not levy nearly enough taxes to afford its public spending. Then again, maybe I'm just too cynical but I really don't see any way out anymore for Greece. Tsipras' and Varoufakis' style of negotiating has been arrogant and foolish from the start. You cannot just vote away austerity, not if you are dependent on the money of third parties. If Tsipras and Syriza are really serious about improving Greece's situation they should be looking inward instead of outward. Greece's clientelism and the issues it caused is actually surprisingly well documented. Of course that does require admitting that your own country is governed worse than some developing countries. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6205 Posts
Talks on ending a deadlock between Greece and its international creditors broke up in failure on Sunday, with European leaders venting their frustration as Athens stumbled closer toward a debt default that threatens its future in the euro. European Union officials blamed the collapse on Athens, saying it had failed to offer anything new to secure the funding it needs to repay 1.6 billion euros ($1.8 billion) to the International Monetary Fund by the end of this month. Greece retorted it was still ready to talk, but that EU and IMF officials had said they were not authorized to negotiate further. Athens insists it will never give in to demands for more pension and wage cuts. "This is very disappointing and sad. It was a last attempt to bridge our differences but the gap is too large. One can discuss a gap, but this is an ocean," said a person who was close to the talks. Both sides acknowledged the talks had lasted less than an hour, although even here accounts differed: Greece put the length at 45 minutes, EU officials at half an hour. Following what it called this "last attempt" at a solution, the EU's executive Commission said euro zone finance ministers would now tackle the issue when they meet on Thursday. With no technical deal apparently possible, the ministers are likely to have to make difficult political decisions on Greece's membership of the currency bloc. Failure to keep Greece in the euro, after years of arduous negotiations and two emergency bailouts totaling 240 billion euros, would send it lurching into the unknown and mark a historic blow to the EU's most ambitious project. Last Friday, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras had indicated he would accept painful compromises on demands for austerity and reform in return for debt relief. But the Commission said after the talks, which also involved the European Central Bank, that "the Greek proposals remain incomplete". "While some progress was made, the talks did not succeed as there remains a significant gap between the plans of the Greek authorities and the joint requirements of Commission, ECB and IMF," it said. These amounted to up to 2 billion euros a year in permanent budget savings. EU officials said Athens had moved closer to the lenders on the size of Greece's primary surplus - the budget balance before its debt repayments - but had not said how it intended to achieve this. Otherwise the Greek delegation, led by Deputy Prime Minister Yannis Dragasakis, had offered nothing new, they added. Dragasakis said the Greek delegation remained ready to resume talks but blamed European lenders for insisting on pension cuts and value-added tax hikes to close the projected budget gap. source | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
you'll also be wrong in every conceivable future because it looks like it's what you do... | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On June 10 2015 22:35 maartendq wrote: That's actually one of the problem both the EU and NATO will have to deal with sooner or later: it consists of a series of countries who, more often than not, do not feel any connection to each other. I can imagine Italians not seeing the point in them defending Ukrainian or Latvian sovereignty, for instance, and I can't blame them for that either. As a Belgian I probably wouldn't start caring until the Russians actually invaded Germany. It's also not that surprising that after two world wars, which caused the lives of tens of millions of people, very few Europeans are keen to have at it again. the whole point of NATO is that it's a defensive alliance. if you don't honor the NATO alliance for one country you deserve to be ejected from the alliance I will be pissed as hell if Russia moves into a baltic country and France, Germany, etc. do nothing. They are effectively voiding the alliance On June 10 2015 22:03 lord_nibbler wrote: I sad it in this thread already and I say it again: If a significant number of German troops were ordered to move into Ukraine or Latvia to fight against Russian troops, our streets would be full of non-stop protests. Who would ever want to fight against the Russians, they have a huge army and atomic rockets, who you? And even more so, who would ever want to die over the question whether Russian-speaking Putin-lovers should keep their passport or get a new one? Like seriously, what the f..? It wouldn't be just Germany dude, you guys would be fighting on the same side as other NATO countries with equipment in greater quantities and higher quality than the Russians. UK + USA + France + Germany + Italy would be a pretty formidable force | ||
| ||
