EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 217
| 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. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 17 2015 23:06 dismiss wrote: Ah yes, the good old "Your statistics are meaningless because I say so, while mine are clearly correct because I feel like they are" argument. That's a rather poor comment. When you ask the question "should we help greek" a yes answer can both mean "they need help to pay their debts" and "they need help to grow and get out of unemployment", but that s a different kind of help. Most nothern posters / politicians / journalists that I know of only talk about the debt, its origin (clientelism, etc.), and thus the legitimacy of the eurogroup actions. Anglo saxon economists / journalist usually stress on the humanitarian sotuation and the moqt efficient way for greece o get better. That s two completly different way to look at the subject. One is retributive : it is about what Greece "deserve". The other is pragmatic. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On July 17 2015 17:32 Evil_Sheep wrote: You are the one that is confused!Debt restructuring: Debt restructuring may involve debt forgiveness and/or debt rescheduling. Debt relief: In the context of this crisis, debt relief has commonly been taken to mean debt reduction/haircuts, but actually the term is ambiguous and can be debt reduction and/or rescheduling, just like debt restructuring. I am certain that Merkel is not confused at the terms being thrown around, but it is easy for anyone else to be. I told you two times already, that for Merkel there is a clear difference in the definitions of debt relief and debt restructuring. Why do you continue to argue about your definition still? What is the point? When she says 'there will be no debt relief', she means there will be no haircuts / forgiveness. But she does not mean that there will be no 'debt restructuring'! That has already happed before in 2012 and will happen soon again. The German position has been, as you said, no debt "haircuts"... Yes, always 'no' to haircuts, but never 'no' to restructuring. ... and, until the weekend deal, Greece maintaining a 3.5% budget surplus for a verrrry long time. Not true. It was the IMF, that was stubborn on the 3.5% number. For month EU and ECB have been fine with 1%.Now there is a vague commitment to some sort of rescheduling that will presumably be negotiated in the upcoming bailout negotiations. It is not as vague as you make it to be. Of course, during the negotiations it was kept rather ambiguous, that is called tactics. But they always sad, they were going to get to this issue, just not before Greece fully commits to the 'program'. Last Sunday did not change a thing in their stand on this issue.Syriza's position was debt restructuring in the form of debt reduction and/or debt rescheduling that reduced the budget surplus Germany was asking for, while still adhering to the austerity policy. Germany has / had the exact same position!The issue is and was always the timing. Germany did not want to talk about debt restructuring before the Greeks do not commit to the 'program'. That is the whole point here. First they want to see real budget recovery. Because reaching a surplus by getting your debt reduced is trivial and takes no effort on the Greek side. But effort is exactly what they want to see first. what The IMF has just come out and said either: a large debt reduction, or debt rescheduling with a 30 year grace period, or fiscal transfers. This is far more than what even Syriza was calling for in the negotiations with Germany. In the IMF's own words, Greece requires "debt relief measures that go far beyond what Europe [Germany] has been willing to consider so far." What are you talking about? The current loans for the second program for example have a grace period of 10 years and run until 2054, Germany was fine with that. The next might have a 30 years delay and run until 2070, who knows. Yes there will be negotiations, maybe they end up at 30 years maybe at 25, but nobody is against the principle.So yes, it is no exaggeration to say that there is now a huge gap between the IMF and Germany. So where is this fundamental rift, this oh-so-huge gap, here? And the IMF did update its projections on Greece because of the last month events, it does that pretty regularly, maybe these projections were not considered last Sunday, but since the negotiations have not even started, I see no real news here. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On July 17 2015 21:10 WhiteDog wrote: De Gaule created the ENA, but didn't use them as Mitterand did. True I don't know much about Giscard. But Mauroy - Mitterand first prime minister - bragged about the fact that he put enarque in the highest places. He is the one who "introduced" all the people that rule the left in France today - François Hollande, Ségolène Royale, Dominique Schtrauss Kahn, Laurent Fabius, etc. He ruined our political system by putting technocrats in every places of power. Those are the few people that, by themselves, tailored the complete change in economical policy in the 80ies and our modern economy - with a guy like Sapin, who is still our finance minister today (and who is also an ENArque). True. They are in power mostly because the people that rule the left in France today come from the generation that started their carreer when Mitterand was president. In the same way, Giscard was a young ENA who started with De Gaulle, Chirac a young ENA who started with Pompidou, etc. The point I am unsure off is that they tailored "by themselves" "the complete change in economical policy in the 80ies". There were 2 major changes in the 80s: one in 1981 when Mitterand got to power and one in 1983 when after 3 governments in 2 years socialists conceded on austerity, in a context where inflation was at 14% and growth at 1.3%. But it was in my mind a change mainly for socialists (giving up on a 2 years experiment), more of a fallback after an attempt at a change for the country. I don't believe the ones in power today were the decision makers at the time. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 18 2015 00:46 Oshuy wrote: True. They are in power mostly because the people that rule the left in France today come from the generation that started their carreer when Mitterand was president. In the same way, Giscard was a young ENA who started with De Gaulle, Chirac a young ENA who started with Pompidou, etc. The point I am unsure off is that they tailored "by themselves" "the complete change in economical policy in the 80ies". There were 2 major changes in the 80s: one in 1981 when Mitterand got to power and one in 1983 when after 3 governments in 2 years socialists conceded on austerity, in a context where inflation was at 14% and growth at 1.3%. But it was in my mind a change mainly for socialists (giving up on a 2 years experiment), more of a fallback after an attempt at a change for the country. I don't believe the ones in power today were the decision makers at the time. The fall back of 1983 was the result of the lobbying of a small cabinet : the cabinet of J. Attali, with either hollande or royal - or both I don't remember (checked, it s both). It was the act that finally made the socialist party a liberal party. Chirac was a bit different, he was not a liberal at heart unlike the socialists now in power. Those guys have basically been ruling France for the mast 30 years. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On July 17 2015 21:25 WhiteDog wrote: Technocrats give birth to Le Pen like political creature, because they play with society like it is a set of numbers and usually have preconceived ideas of what the future should be. On the other hand of the spectrum, Chinese technocrats have pretty much lifted half a billion people from abject poverty to middle class status in less than half a century. There are probably many shades of grey in between the extremes of Front National and the Chinese "communists". Technocrats, just like politicians, stem from different backgrounds and not all of them follow the neoliberal "Markets über alles!" dogma. To be honest, I think that Italy would be a lot worse off if the EU had not removed Berlusconi from his position. Having preconceived ideas of what the future or a future society should be like is something all politicians and political philosophers have. Marx' idea was a stateless society after a revolution of the proletariat, while Weber's was probably a state where the ruling class and a bureaucracy were forever locked in a struggle to overpower each other, creating an equilibrium and accountable government in the process (do correct me if I'm wrong). Liberals have a completely different kind of society in mind compared to conservatives as well. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
 this country has been destroying everything valuable in their search for economical progress - even birds and wolves ! Like true communists might I adf. Thank god they have an unlimited supply of hard working people and understood how to use flexible exchange rates to their advantage.If the goal for us is GDP growth sure, technocraty might work. I'm not sure about your description of Weber's favorite society. To me he's a democrate in the purest sense : he describe men torn out by a war between gods - or values - and to him the technic - rationality - is becoming an iron cage, binding men and leading to a disenchanted world. Bureaucraty and the professionalisation of politics goes hand in hand in this process. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10884 Posts
On July 18 2015 01:13 maartendq wrote: On the other hand of the spectrum, Chinese technocrats have pretty much lifted half a billion people from abject poverty to middle class status in less than half a century. There are probably many shades of grey in between the extremes of Front National and the Chinese "communists". Technocrats, just like politicians, stem from different backgrounds and not all of them follow the neoliberal "Markets über alles!" dogma. To be honest, I think that Italy would be a lot worse off if the EU had not removed Berlusconi from his position. Having preconceived ideas of what the future or a future society should be like is something all politicians and political philosophers have. Marx' idea was a stateless society after a revolution of the proletariat, while Weber's was probably a state where the ruling class and a bureaucracy were forever locked in a struggle to overpower each other, creating an equilibrium and accountable government in the process (do correct me if I'm wrong). Liberals have a completely different kind of society in mind compared to conservatives as well. If China would be judged by general european standards, China would look worse than just about any country in the EU.... But when judging China "the others" are just looking at pure economic power, which is still pitifull when you look at population size/landmass and about any metric that takes chinas sheer size into account. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
A half a year ago, Greece was preparing to return to the capital markets. Today, the country's economy lies in ruins. That is the Greek government's responsibility. But we cannot abandon the people of Greece. That is why a new program was needed, even if means new hardships for the population. More than anything, though, the question is: What is the better solution for Europe? ... We never said that Greece should leave the euro zone. We only called attention to the possibility that Athens itself can decide on taking a timeout. Debt relief is not possible within the currency union. European treaties do not allow it. ... For the most part, the elements of the new program were agreed to back in 2010. They were just never implemented, unfortunately. Thus far, the Greek economy and society have hardly developed in the desired direction. What has dramatically changed since the beginning of the year, however, is the need for additional financing. According to the most conservative estimates, that need is now at least €80 billion. For many people, that is an unimaginable sum. Q: Why do you think that the medicine that hasn't worked for five years will now suddenly help? The problem is that for the last five years the medicine has not been taken as prescribed. That's why it is now important that those measures agreed to long ago are now implemented. In December, the troika made clear that Greece still hasn't tackled 15 important reforms. That must finally change. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On July 18 2015 01:03 WhiteDog wrote: The fall back of 1983 was the result of the lobbying of a small cabinet : the cabinet of J. Attali, with either hollande or royal - or both I don't remember (checked, it s both). It was the act that finally made the socialist party a liberal party. Chirac was a bit different, he was not a liberal at heart unlike the socialists now in power. Those guys have basically been ruling France for the mast 30 years. Attali was in favor of the change, yes. So were Delors (asking for it since 1981), Mauroy, Rocard, Sautter, Guigou, ... It wasn't unexpected, Attali wasn't a lone voice at any moment. The rare ones were those in favor of rupture, like Riboud, Fabius, Beregovoy. Were some of the rulers of today on austerity's side at the time ? Most of them, yes, they were juniors in cabinets advocating austerity and it was their job to work for it, following the main line. All of them ? No, Fabius for example. If you state they have been part of the administration for most of the last 30 years and that most were serving under the councellors that lead to the change of policy in 1983, I agree. But were they the ones deciding on the economic policy of the country at the time ? No. Where they ruling ? No. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
Link to Article Summary of article is quite simply: Greece is fucked and won't be able to to grow faster than its debt stock, EU won't do debt relief since it then means other countries would want it as well and that means the banking system once again goes to shit (and not just in Greece) and no one wants to kick Greece out since that would mean EU is as a union is nothing more than trash. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
But were they the ones deciding on the economic policy of the country at the time ? No. Where they ruling ? No. Being in the cabinet of the councelor of the president that had his office next to him is not ruling ? On July 18 2015 02:56 Nyxisto wrote: Birds and wolves might seem awesome when you're living in a Western developed city, but they're probably not great when you're a Chinese peasant and they just killed your last goat. The Chinese technocracy gets tens of millions of people out of poverty and into the modern world and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't trade that in for what they had before. 1 ) your comment is relevant for wolves only (as bird rarely kill goats) ; 2 ) it's the main problem with this kind of "communism" : it doesn't understand the value of life or nature, blinded by its teleogical idea of progress and its productivism. To quote Marx, nature is the "inorganic body of mankind", and thus it is essential to our well being that nature is protected against economical desires - wolves are important ; 3 ) lol no farmers would have killed all the bird, as farmers usually understand the role bird play in their production. Just to explain : The Great Sparrow Campaign (Chinese: 打麻雀运动; pinyin: Dǎ Máquè Yùndòng) also known as the Kill a Sparrow Campaign (Chinese: 消灭麻雀运动; pinyin: Xiāomiè Máquè Yùndòng), and officially, the Four Pests Campaign was one of the first actions taken in the Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1962. The four pests to be eliminated were rats, flies, mosquitoes, and sparrows.[1] The extermination of the last upset the ecological balance, and enabled crop-eating insects to proliferate. The campaign against the 'Four Pests' was initiated in 1958 as a hygiene campaign by Mao Zedong, who identified the need to exterminate mosquitoes, flies, rats, and sparrows. Sparrows – mainly the Eurasian tree sparrow[1][2] – were included on the list because they ate grain seeds, robbing the people of the fruits of their labour. The masses of China were mobilized to eradicate the birds, and citizens took to banging pots and pans or beating drums to scare the birds from landing, forcing them to fly until they fell from the sky in exhaustion. Sparrow nests were torn down, eggs were broken, and nestlings were killed.[1][3] Sparrows and other birds were shot down from the sky, resulting in the near-extinction of the birds in China.[4] Non-material rewards and recognition were offered to schools, work units and government agencies in accordance with the volume of pests they had killed. By April 1960, Chinese leaders realized that sparrows ate a large amount of insects, as well as grains.[3][2] Rather than being increased, rice yields after the campaign were substantially decreased.[1][2] Mao ordered the end of the campaign against sparrows, replacing them with bed bugs in the ongoing campaign against the Four Pests.[3] By this time, however, it was too late. With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and compounding the ecological problems already caused by the Great Leap Forward, including widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides.[1] Ecological imbalance is credited with exacerbating the Great Chinese Famine, in which at least 20 million people died of starvation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign 4) indeed, many people got out of poverty, but how many people died in industries, in mines ? Is it really the communism utopia ? Was it possible to prevent those people from dying and still get the country out of its economic misery ? There is a passage in some book Engels wrote where he pass through London, is impressed at the beauty of the city, its architectural success, only to remember that this was all possible thanks to the blood of workers. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 18 2015 03:36 Nyxisto wrote: I think orthodox Marxism is at least consistent with its ideology. I don't think a lot of things are more obnoxious than the modern urban academic Marxists who fantasize about living like communitarian hippies while they've probably not spend a day of their lives actually living like that. Academic marxists are the ruin of it all, marxism is practical. It's beside the point tho, technocracy is dumb, as showed through this exemple : killing bird to increase productivity, only to find out that it actually help productivity... everything enforcing a crisis and famin that lead to the death of 20 millions people. It's an absurd exemple as to why the more to decide the better. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
pretender58
Germany713 Posts
On July 18 2015 03:50 cLutZ wrote: Modern China is a Facist state, and are Communist in name only. At the lowest levels of the economy its basically capitalist, and as you progress to richer industries and more expensive projects it becomes more and more state-directed. Abandoning state ownership is what triggered their growth, and the compounding mistakes by technocrats trying to direct the economy is why they have abandoned cities and are probably (the official numbers are fake) in a pretty steep recession. Yes, it's highly likely China is sugarcoating its statistics, but a full-blown recession (a continuous contraction of GDP) is unreasonable to assume for China as consumption of the newly established middle-class will remain high (or even increase). See the IMF's WEO (p.54) for example. Regarding the duality of capitalist and communist implementations and its consequences, the Guardian just had a good in-depth look at it. In other news, Tsipras is (as was expected) reshuffling his cabinet. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On July 18 2015 05:20 pretender58 wrote: Yes, it's highly likely China is sugarcoating its statistics, but a full-blown recession (a continuous contraction of GDP) is unreasonable to assume for China as consumption of the newly established middle-class will remain high (or even increase). See the IMF's WEO (p.54) for example. Reagrding the duality of capitalist and communist implementations and its consequences, the Guardian just had a good in-depth look at it. In other news, Tsipras is (as was expected) reshuffling his cabinet. I say they are in a recession because of their decrease of imports in raw materials, which is basically the only reliable way to measure the economy. Its probably not as big as what the West has had since 2008, more like a restructuring and shock like right at the end of the Clinton administration/beginning of GWB. | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On July 18 2015 03:50 cLutZ wrote: Modern China is a Facist state, and are Communist in name only. At the lowest levels of the economy its basically capitalist, and as you progress to richer industries and more expensive projects it becomes more and more state-directed. Abandoning state ownership is what triggered their growth, and the compounding mistakes by technocrats trying to direct the economy is why they have abandoned cities and are probably (the official numbers are fake) in a pretty steep recession. You actually have a pretty good read on China. Though the "top" seems to split into a few directions. There is State Fascism for Central Industries. Oligarchy Capitalism for some of the Tech sector. And it's all built around Clientism. In many ways, the "old ways" never actually left. They just took on a slightly different form. As for their numbers. They're lies, but they're close enough that they can plausibly say they're accurate. Because of the way we track statistics, China could be in a severe recession and still be growing at 3-4% per year. It's a country of 1.4 billion people, and people moving from "dirt poor" to just "poor" is a huge economic driver. Yet what we would consider the larger drivers of growth in the modern economies could be suffering (or collapsing) greatly. We know the construction boom is over. Manufacturing has started to stagnate. Asset prices, almost across the board, are falling because demand from China is falling. China also have a monstrous credit bubble that the PBOC is desperate to try to contain at the moment. The collapsing stock market is simply a sign of major problem, not the direct cause. Things are going be bad over the next several years. And it's going to directly effect everyone. | ||
|
pretender58
Germany713 Posts
On July 18 2015 05:27 cLutZ wrote: I say they are in a recession because of their decrease of imports in raw materials, which is basically the only reliable way to measure the economy. Its probably not as big as what the West has had since 2008, more like a restructuring and shock like right at the end of the Clinton administration/beginning of GWB. I'd refute that imports are the sole variable of which you can get adequate numbers. Exports and FDIs are picking up again while China retains a strong trade surplus. Add a surge in government spending due to the recent stock market shock and the aforementioned domestic consumption and you have a slumping economy but nowhere near recession. I agree on the restructuring part though and I'm particularly interested how Xi Jinping wants to reduce the friction between capitalist realities and his more authoritarian style (compared to his predecessors) based on Maoist ideology. They may have a rocky road ahead after their smooth growth of the last decades. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/file/13918726.jpg)
