|
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. |
On July 13 2015 01:10 bookwyrm wrote: They want to force Syriza to resign before any deal
It's exactly this. And to be more precise: they are really afraid that a non-TINA political party could reach success. So germans will never agreed to a deal with this government.
|
On July 13 2015 01:18 Furikawari wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2015 01:10 bookwyrm wrote: They want to force Syriza to resign before any deal It's exactly this. And to be more precise: they are really afraid that a non-TINA political party could reach success. So germans will never agreed to a deal with this government.
you get it. the stakes are not about greece. the stakes are not about the money that greece supposedly owes. the stakes about the continued survival of the entire post-71, post-89 neoliberal order.
greece is just the prelude to a game which is going to be played for all the marbles. all of them
|
I don't think I agree. Because if that's truly the play Germany is going for, they're going to overextend their hand and it's going to blow up in their faces.
Syriza would see to a Grexit before stepping down voluntarily and that would set a very dangerous precedence and it would be a very big gamble on Germany's part.
|
On July 13 2015 01:30 c0ldfusion wrote: I don't think I agree. Because if that's truly the play Germany is going for, they're going to overextend their hand and it's going to blow up in their faces.
we can hope!
I think that is exactly what they are going to do. It's exactly what Bernanke and Yellen have spent the last 7 years doing so why not the germans?
at which point.. all power to the communes!
|
I have no idea what you mean by that Bernanke and Yellen comment. I don't see any situation in the US parallel to the Greece crisis.
|
|
|
This all sounds very high level. At least they're focused on the right thing - implementation.
That's a positive sign I think that they're negotiating in good faith.
|
Makes sense. Syriza has to show they mean business and are not making empty promises.
|
On July 13 2015 01:30 c0ldfusion wrote: I don't think I agree. Because if that's truly the play Germany is going for, they're going to overextend their hand and it's going to blow up in their faces.
Syriza would see to a Grexit before stepping down voluntarily and that would set a very dangerous precedence and it would be a very big gamble on Germany's part. I would hope that the past few decades have convinced people that "regime change" is not a long-term healthy strategy for handling disagreements. Might take another decade to figure that out though.
|
On July 13 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2015 00:20 Nyxisto wrote:On July 12 2015 23:00 WhiteDog wrote:On July 12 2015 22:34 maartendq wrote:On July 12 2015 20:49 WhiteDog wrote:On July 12 2015 20:31 maartendq wrote:On July 12 2015 19:30 WhiteDog wrote:On July 12 2015 19:23 maartendq wrote:On July 12 2015 17:45 WhiteDog wrote:On July 12 2015 16:58 maartendq wrote: [quote] Hours worked per day or per week means very little. My wife is from Malaysia and they've got a 46-hour work week there, meaning that if you added Malaysia to those graphs, the whole of Europe would seem incredibly lazy.
What matters is how efficient bureaucracy is, i.e. how much red tape does one need to go through to get something done. If a simple request takes four phone calls to different departments, who then have to look up stuff in badly organised or god forbid even paper files, that will not be as productive as someone who can just look up all the necessary information the customer needs on his computer because all files are stored centrally on a server which most employees have access to. Then there's still vertical hierarchy to take into account as well: having to ask the permission of superiors to sometimes do even the smallest thing, unnecessary levels of (middle) management etc.
How much someone can get done in one hour is a whole lot more important than how much time that peson spends at the workplace. It's always funny with the liberals how the solutions are always the same : less "rules" and more "competition". Why is it that the most competitive multinational firms in the world still produced a heavy administration and are usually bound by tons of rules ? The administration in France - the most productive (by hour) country in europe, after luxembourg - is most likely bigger than any other EU country, but who cares Greeks small productivity is linked to its bureaucracy's inefficiency ! No, what define productivity is the capital accumulated - in all its forms - that people use through out their production. I was actually arguing for less red tape, not for less regulation. There's a difference there. To get more productivity, you need more investment, more qualified workforce, more advanced technology, not "less" anything. How do you think productivity will increase when every decision, no matter how trivial, requires the approval of several levels of management (that exist only to satisfy people's egos), who may not find that decision to be a priority and might procrastinate on it? Or worse, if decisions require the filling out of endless forms, which need to be approved by a manager and so on and so on. It doesn't matter how qualified your workforce is, or how advanced your technology is, stuff like that will grind every administration to a halt. In the end its only purpose becomes to sustain itself rather than provide services for the people. That's just an ideological discourse with 0 empirical ground. I gave you an exemple (France) of a very bureaucratic state and a very productive one. Bureaucracy has also a lot of positive impact on productivity - from this point of view, Greece needs more bureaucracy not less - as pointed out by the (very liberal) endogene growth theory. Sure bureaucracy have famous inefficiencies, but if you really think those inefficiencies are at the core of one country's lack of productivity, you're putting not only a finger but your whole hand in your eye. But well, as a good liberal, rational arguments will have no impact on you whatsoever so let's agree to disagree. The red tape people have to go through to get anything done is one of the main complaints about the Greek public sector. It is bloated, inefficient, recruitment is based on nepotism and clientelism rather than meritocracy, and most importantly, Greece can't afford it any longer. And you think Greece needs not less, but even more of that? How is that going to help? You cannot compare the bureaucracy of a country like France to the bureaucracy of Greece. They're on completely different levels, both in terms of workforce qualifications and workforce integrity. So the problem is not that they need less bureaucracy, but more state. They need rules, a judicial system and a police efficient enough to punish corruption, etc. All that need more investment and not less, that s a fact and that was my point since the beginning. And when I said capital in all its form I include institutions (which are also something you accumulate). If it's a matter of having a good bureaucracy instead of a bad one rather than big government vs small, how do you get there though? If the same people are still in charge that couldn't fix it, how do we guarantee that they don't end up with a big, bad government? I don't have the solutions, i was just pointing out that this idea that less is better is idiotic, even regarding democracy. Whatever Greece structural problems are. Show nested quote +On July 12 2015 23:18 Yuljan wrote:On July 12 2015 21:47 WhiteDog wrote:On July 12 2015 21:45 Yuljan wrote: It seems varoufakis gets the point. Schäuble obviously realized that a federation with France, Italy and Spain can only work if these countries reform or Germany itself will have to adopt their style of government if they do not want to be the sole large supporter of these economies, which in 20-30 years will then put Europe as a whole in Greece's position. Also talking about 8-9 bn new money or 80-100bn of new money is a big difference. I do not see the mutual benefit of debt restructuring either. The loss will be incurred either way but in case of a Grexit you dont have to rely on Greece and hope the losses dont climb any higher.
Also I would be very interested in the source of the productivity example for France. As far as I know France relies on a few large international companies not particularly on the French productivity. Funny way to put it, because the entire XX th century has been the opposite : Germany on the back of France and Europe, forcing everyone to put up with (and pay for) their costly reunification. Again I would be very grateful for sources. I am always happy to learn something new. For who do you think the sick man of Europe expression has been tailored ? The 1993 recession in France is largely linked to the indirect cost of the reunification that we europeans agreed to paid - altho without any democratic decision - in exchange for an increased implication of Germany in the Europe.
Once again, I do not trust your arguments. I dont see how France was paying for the reunification or has higher productivity than other European countries or had to support Europe largely on their own in the last century. I do know however know that French tend to overestimate their own contributions so I would be very grateful for any independent sources on the subject that uses rational rather than emotional arguments.
|
On July 13 2015 02:06 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2015 01:13 WhiteDog wrote:On July 13 2015 00:20 Nyxisto wrote:On July 12 2015 23:00 WhiteDog wrote:On July 12 2015 22:34 maartendq wrote:On July 12 2015 20:49 WhiteDog wrote:On July 12 2015 20:31 maartendq wrote:On July 12 2015 19:30 WhiteDog wrote:On July 12 2015 19:23 maartendq wrote:On July 12 2015 17:45 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] It's always funny with the liberals how the solutions are always the same : less "rules" and more "competition". Why is it that the most competitive multinational firms in the world still produced a heavy administration and are usually bound by tons of rules ? The administration in France - the most productive (by hour) country in europe, after luxembourg - is most likely bigger than any other EU country, but who cares Greeks small productivity is linked to its bureaucracy's inefficiency !
No, what define productivity is the capital accumulated - in all its forms - that people use through out their production. I was actually arguing for less red tape, not for less regulation. There's a difference there. To get more productivity, you need more investment, more qualified workforce, more advanced technology, not "less" anything. How do you think productivity will increase when every decision, no matter how trivial, requires the approval of several levels of management (that exist only to satisfy people's egos), who may not find that decision to be a priority and might procrastinate on it? Or worse, if decisions require the filling out of endless forms, which need to be approved by a manager and so on and so on. It doesn't matter how qualified your workforce is, or how advanced your technology is, stuff like that will grind every administration to a halt. In the end its only purpose becomes to sustain itself rather than provide services for the people. That's just an ideological discourse with 0 empirical ground. I gave you an exemple (France) of a very bureaucratic state and a very productive one. Bureaucracy has also a lot of positive impact on productivity - from this point of view, Greece needs more bureaucracy not less - as pointed out by the (very liberal) endogene growth theory. Sure bureaucracy have famous inefficiencies, but if you really think those inefficiencies are at the core of one country's lack of productivity, you're putting not only a finger but your whole hand in your eye. But well, as a good liberal, rational arguments will have no impact on you whatsoever so let's agree to disagree. The red tape people have to go through to get anything done is one of the main complaints about the Greek public sector. It is bloated, inefficient, recruitment is based on nepotism and clientelism rather than meritocracy, and most importantly, Greece can't afford it any longer. And you think Greece needs not less, but even more of that? How is that going to help? You cannot compare the bureaucracy of a country like France to the bureaucracy of Greece. They're on completely different levels, both in terms of workforce qualifications and workforce integrity. So the problem is not that they need less bureaucracy, but more state. They need rules, a judicial system and a police efficient enough to punish corruption, etc. All that need more investment and not less, that s a fact and that was my point since the beginning. And when I said capital in all its form I include institutions (which are also something you accumulate). If it's a matter of having a good bureaucracy instead of a bad one rather than big government vs small, how do you get there though? If the same people are still in charge that couldn't fix it, how do we guarantee that they don't end up with a big, bad government? I don't have the solutions, i was just pointing out that this idea that less is better is idiotic, even regarding democracy. Whatever Greece structural problems are. On July 12 2015 23:18 Yuljan wrote:On July 12 2015 21:47 WhiteDog wrote:On July 12 2015 21:45 Yuljan wrote: It seems varoufakis gets the point. Schäuble obviously realized that a federation with France, Italy and Spain can only work if these countries reform or Germany itself will have to adopt their style of government if they do not want to be the sole large supporter of these economies, which in 20-30 years will then put Europe as a whole in Greece's position. Also talking about 8-9 bn new money or 80-100bn of new money is a big difference. I do not see the mutual benefit of debt restructuring either. The loss will be incurred either way but in case of a Grexit you dont have to rely on Greece and hope the losses dont climb any higher.
Also I would be very interested in the source of the productivity example for France. As far as I know France relies on a few large international companies not particularly on the French productivity. Funny way to put it, because the entire XX th century has been the opposite : Germany on the back of France and Europe, forcing everyone to put up with (and pay for) their costly reunification. Again I would be very grateful for sources. I am always happy to learn something new. For who do you think the sick man of Europe expression has been tailored ? The 1993 recession in France is largely linked to the indirect cost of the reunification that we europeans agreed to paid - altho without any democratic decision - in exchange for an increased implication of Germany in the Europe. Once again, I do not trust your arguments. I dont see how France was paying for the reunification or has higher productivity than other European countries or had to support Europe largely on their own in the last century. I do know however know that French tend to overestimate their own contributions so I would be very grateful for any independent sources on the subject that uses rational rather than emotional arguments. The graphs I found showed that France was the fourth most productive country in the EU (after Luxemburg, The Netherlands, and Belgium) but honestly the difference with the Netherlands and Belgium were was so small as to be negligible. His main point stands.
|
reminder germany baited greece into a bigger debt
|
On July 13 2015 01:3 c0ldfusion wrote: I have no idea what you mean by that Bernanke and Yellen comment. I don't see any situation in the US parallel to the Greece crisis.
They are completely parallel. Bad private sector debt gets bailed out by governments turning them into big vulture funds and triggering sovereign debt crises. In fact theyre not even different they are part of the same global economic crisis of the US and its vassals (ie europe)
Read mark blythe on austerity if you think I dont know what I am saying
|
re: baiting Greece into debt: That might be your interpretation. The german government has been very reluctant, from the very start, to give out credits. For whatever reason they adhered to the idea of having to bail out the banks (mainly french and german ones at that, just a friendly reminder of myself) at the beginning of the crisis and from then on just went with it, without a major plan it seems, going from one bailout to the next without really having a lasting solution - which would have been either debt restructuring with lasting reforms (no clue how to achieve that, one cannot impose that kind of reforms from the outside, it has to come from the inside - or the populace will feel dominated) or Grexit, in hindsight. Alas, the Merkel government lacked the chuzpe to go for either one and just tried to wing it ("durchmerkeln" has become a popular expression to describe her indecisive way of acting for a reason).
In none of this has there been any mischevious plan to conquer Europe or bait Greece into more credits. That's rather tinfoil-hatish. I'm afraid the reality is even scarier: none of our leaders had any kind of grand plan to begin with.
|
A couple questions from a US person.
1) In the US, the more liberal party (democrats) is the one that pushes for larger government and more regulation while the more conservative party (republicans) push for smaller government and deregulation. I've seen accusations in this thread of being a Liberal when people have proposed less regulation. Is it flipped around in Europe where the liberals are pushing for smaller government while the conservatives are pushing for a larger government? Or am I missing something else entirely?
2) Is "bike-thief" a common German stereotype? I saw it used in this thread and a year or two ago there was an incident in the US where a person was going around stealing bikes out of garages. Eventually, a man purposely left his garage open and waited with a gun. When the thief came in, the man shot him dead. It turned out he was a German exchange student. Here's an article on the verdict: http://news.yahoo.com/montana-man-killed-german-student-set-sentencing-065431013.html Sorry, I'm just curious on this one as I haven't heard that stereotype before.
|
On July 13 2015 01:30 c0ldfusion wrote: I don't think I agree. Because if that's truly the play Germany is going for, they're going to overextend their hand and it's going to blow up in their faces.
Syriza would see to a Grexit before stepping down voluntarily and that would set a very dangerous precedence and it would be a very big gamble on Germany's part.
The threat in Greece is not limited to default, per se. Germany wants Syriza to resign because that would be a symbolic victory over the grass roots self-organization going on in Greece, and that has been going on in Greece for the last 5 years. We've seen the proliferation of alternative currencies, community-based politics, and general rebellion against the neoliberal European order and that serves as a greater threat to European stability in the troika's eyes than a haggling over some billions here or there. It's the authenticity of Syriza's leaders and the rejection of fear-driven politics that makes them an important symbolic target.
|
On July 13 2015 03:42 RenSC2 wrote: A couple questions from a US person.
1) In the US, the more liberal party (democrats) is the one that pushes for larger government and more regulation while the more conservative party (republicans) push for smaller government and deregulation. I've seen accusations in this thread of being a Liberal when people have proposed less regulation. Is it flipped around in Europe where the liberals are pushing for smaller government while the conservatives are pushing for a larger government? Or am I missing something else entirely? It is the US who flipped it. The word liberal can be meant in the social and economic sense. In the latter, liberals tend to favor less government interference in the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
In Europe it is also fashionable for people who generally have no idea what they are talking about to use the word neoliberal as a pejorative term. You can generally disregard their opinions.
|
On July 13 2015 03:29 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2015 01:3 c0ldfusion wrote: I have no idea what you mean by that Bernanke and Yellen comment. I don't see any situation in the US parallel to the Greece crisis. They are completely parallel. Bad private sector debt gets bailed out by governments turning them into big vulture funds and triggering sovereign debt crises. In fact theyre not even different they are part of the same global economic crisis of the US and its vassals (ie europe) Read mark blythe on austerity if you think I dont know what I am saying
So 1, your comment is extremely superficial. I don't know who or what you're trying to bait.
2, let's say you're not trolling, even if you struggle to find some kind of analogy you're going completely off-topic and you're trying to derail the thread.
Frankly, it's embarrassing to me as an American that you're trying to promote your personal view about US policy in a European thread when we have a very real and very immediate crisis on our hands.
|
On July 13 2015 03:42 RenSC2 wrote:A couple questions from a US person. 1) In the US, the more liberal party (democrats) is the one that pushes for larger government and more regulation while the more conservative party (republicans) push for smaller government and deregulation. I've seen accusations in this thread of being a Liberal when people have proposed less regulation. Is it flipped around in Europe where the liberals are pushing for smaller government while the conservatives are pushing for a larger government? Or am I missing something else entirely? 2) Is "bike-thief" a common German stereotype? I saw it used in this thread and a year or two ago there was an incident in the US where a person was going around stealing bikes out of garages. Eventually, a man purposely left his garage open and waited with a gun. When the thief came in, the man shot him dead. It turned out he was a German exchange student. Here's an article on the verdict: http://news.yahoo.com/montana-man-killed-german-student-set-sentencing-065431013.html Sorry, I'm just curious on this one as I haven't heard that stereotype before. re 1: the term liberal is used very differently on both sides of the pond. In USA, it is used in the context of social liberalism (gay rights, race and class equality, feminism and so on = removing regulations on what one may or may not do in private life, on how to interact). In Europe it is often meant in the sense of economic liberalism, like deregulating banks, believing in the magic powers of the free market and so on. So, American "liberal" = left in European political speak, while European "liberal" = less state regulations/ right-ish economic policies in American political speak. re 2: no clue, ask our neighbors. Never heard it before reading it in this thread.
|
On July 13 20immediate crisis on our hands. And its the same crisis.5 03:48 c0ldfusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2015 03:29 bookwyrm wrote:On July 13 2015 01:3 c0ldfusion wrote: I have no idea what you mean by that Bernanke and Yellen comment. I don't see any situation in the US parallel to the Greece crisis. They are completely parallel. Bad private sector debt gets bailed out by governments turning them into big vulture funds and triggering sovereign debt crises. In fact theyre not even different they are part of the same global economic crisis of the US and its vassals (ie europe) Read mark blythe on austerity if you think I dont know what I am saying So 1, your comment is extremely superficial. I don't know who or what you're trying to bait. 2, let's say you're not trolling, even if you struggle to find some kind of analogy you're going completely off-topic and you're trying to derail the thread. Frankly, it's embarrassing to me as an American that you're trying to promote your personal view about US policy in a European thread when we have a very real and very immediate crisis on our hands.
Im not baiting anything im just trying to help you understand the current global conjuncture.
We ALL have a real and Immediate crisis. Its the same crisis. Its what you might call a crisis of the world-system. Trying to analyze these things according to naive conception of geographical political boundaries is a bad epistemic framework. If you want to understand the crisis you have to understand it in its global dimensions because it is a crisis of globalizing capital. Duh! :p
|
|
|
|
|
|