EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 218
| 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. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On July 17 2015 23:31 lord_nibbler wrote: Against my better judgment I will give it one more try... You are the one that is confused! 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. Look, you are telling me I am wrong about the definition of debt restructuring. I have helpfully provided you the dictionary definition as well as an explanation from the BBC. Neither I, nor the dictionary nor the BBC are confused on this issue. Neither you or me get to define what a word in English means. Not even Angela Merkel gets to define what it means. I am sure she understands the meaning of all the terminology in these negotiations and that is not a stumbling block for her. Now you have been circling around a very nuanced point here. Debt relief is commonly taken to mean debt forgiveness, when it is actually a more ambiguous term. Certainly Merkel has understood the term in this way. As you mentioned at some point, Varoufakis understood this and switched to using the word debt restructuring, which is more neutral. Now again, as you point out, Merkel does not countenance any form of debt forgiveness. So when Merkel agrees to the term debt restructuring, in her mind yes, the only type of debt restructuring she would accept is rescheduling. But the term can and does mean either/or. Anyway I don't think you and I are truly in disagreement here, this is more of a misunderstanding of a rather pedantic issue. Not true. It was the IMF, that was stubborn on the 3.5% number. For month EU and ECB have been fine with 1%. It's 1% for the first year, rising to 3.5% in 2018 and for decades after that. Merkel has been very firm on this point. It is only with the weekend deal that she's given a vague commitment to possibly reduce that with debt restructuring in the upcoming 3rd 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. I call it vague, you call it ambiguous... 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 where is this fundamental rift, this oh-so-huge gap, here?. I've given you the IMF's own words on the matter. They make it crystal clear there is a large gap between their position and Germany's. This gap is not a figment of the media's imagination. Everyone understands that there has been an open break between Germany and IMF who have been publicly united until now. I'll put it another way. The IMF called for, if not debt forgiveness, then a 30 year grace period on all Greece's European debt. That would mean no debt repayment for 30 years, no budget surpluses, and an end to the austerity policy. This is an idea that Angela Merkel has opposed with every bone in her body up to this point. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
On July 18 2015 07:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Some people here seem to think China is still a communist country. How can there be people be out of date by more than 30 years? And then to write posts in a forum on a topical topic. How laughable. I have no idea where you get that idea from, no one claimed anything like that? But good that you can feel superior now. What people mentioned is the fact that China CLAIMS it is communist. The ruling chinese party is the communist party. The fact that they don't really do a lot of communist things nowadays does not change that. (Another problem with communism is that isn't really that well defined, a lot of different people put a lot of different systems into that one hat. Or none at all, always claiming that "x wasn't true communism!".) | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 18 2015 07:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Some people here seem to think China is still a communist country. How can there be people be out of date by more than 30 years? And then to write posts in a forum on a topical topic. How laughable. I will say that what was called communism in Russia is very different from what is and was called communism in China. Discussing the merits of each is pretty heavily irrelevant to European politics, so I'll leave it at that. Communism as put forth by Marx has never existed, in part because the conditions he considered (a natural evolution from capitalism to communism in a highly industrialized economy) have never been realized, although modern Europe seems to be as close to that as we've seen. Lenin-style communism started with a highly agrarian society, and Maoist communism has its own differences. This is not to say there is "no true Communist" but more so that there are multiple variations on Marx's ideas. It'll be interesting to see how communism plays a role in the economics of this century, and as of right now it seems that Europe is going to be where it develops. | ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
True capitalism also has never been tried. | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On July 18 2015 07:52 LegalLord wrote: I will say that what was called communism in Russia is very different from what is and was called communism in China. Discussing the merits of each is pretty heavily irrelevant to European politics, so I'll leave it at that. Communism as put forth by Marx has never existed, in part because the conditions he considered (a natural evolution from capitalism to communism in a highly industrialized economy) have never been realized, although modern Europe seems to be as close to that as we've seen. Lenin-style communism started with a highly agrarian society, and Maoist communism has its own differences. This is not to say there is "no true Communist" but more so that there are multiple variations on Marx's ideas. It'll be interesting to see how communism plays a role in the economics of this century, and as of right now it seems that Europe is going to be where it develops. As long as you can have pockets and regions where you can opt out of communism with capitalism that's cool. Just like having communist regions and communities within a capitalist society is possible. That in my mind is the largest stumbling block with implementing Marx's ideas. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
I read the same article you post and the same IMF report. But none of them say, what you claim they do... On July 18 2015 07:14 Evil_Sheep wrote: All they say is that, compared to the last report they did, the situation deteriorated, so the new debt restructuring suggestion is somewhat bigger than previously discussed. Nothing more. I've given you the IMF's own words on the matter. They make it crystal clear there is a large gap between their position and Germany's. Everyone understands that there has been an open break between Germany and IMF who have been publicly united until now. Read that article again, will you please. Realize that you take a lot out of a single sentence, that is all just interpretation of the BBC. They just say that there are different opinions on future policies between IMF and EU (no shit Sherlock), and that it is the first time they can read that in a official write-up.And now out of this you make this 'rift between IMF and Germany'. That was not in the text (because it is not real). The IMF called for, if not debt forgiveness, then a 30 year grace period on all Greece's European debt. That would mean no debt repayment for 30 years, no budget surpluses, and an end to the austerity policy. The bold part is simply untrue. Have you even red the report (or at least articles about it)?Nowhere does the IMF call for an end for austerity policy or budget surpluses! That is total fabrication on your part. It is even the other way around. The IMF claims in the report, the whole reason Greece needs further loans now, is because they stopped implementing austerity measures in 2015. And the reason they are skeptical about the 3.5% surpluses in later years is not because it is unreachable, but because they do not trust the Greek government to not ease on austerity the moment the budget improves into surplus. | ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On July 18 2015 09:27 lord_nibbler wrote: All they say is that, compared to the last report they did, the situation deteriorated, so the new debt restructuring suggestion is somewhat bigger than previously discussed. Nothing more. I don't need to repeat what I've already written. IMF: "Greece requires 'debt relief measures that go far beyond what Europe [Germany] has been willing to consider so far.'" This is as clear as day. There is a major gap now in their policy positions. I have already explained the technical details of how. Read that article again, will you please. [...]And now out of this you make this 'rift between IMF and Germany'. OK. Headline: Greece debt crisis: IMF attacks EU over bailout terms First sentence: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has fiercely criticised the bailout deal offered to Greece by the eurozone. Second sentence: It said Greece's public debt was now "highly unsustainable" and urged debt relief on a scale "well beyond what has been under consideration to date". I'm not the one who's having difficulty comprehending the text. The bold part is simply untrue. Have you even red the report (or at least articles about it)? Nowhere does the IMF call for an end for austerity policy or budget surpluses! That is total fabrication on your part. You are correct. The IMF never openly calls for an end to austerity or budget surpluses. Nor have I read this anywhere in the media. However based on what I'm reading, this appears to be the logical conclusion of what they are saying. One of the policy options the IMF calls for is a 30 year grace period on all Greece's European debt holdings. Greece currently is running large budget surpluses (austerity) in order to pay off its debt. The IMF is calling for a grace period on debt repayments. Therefore there would be no need to run budget surpluses and therefore there would be no more austerity policy. If you have a different interpretation of what I'm seeing, I'd be interested to hear it. What's clear in the IMF's debt sustainability analysis is all three of the policy options they call for involve significantly reducing, assisting with, or eliminating Greece's immediate debt servicing obligations and its net budget surplus. In other words, significantly reducing or eliminating austerity in the near-term. The IMF clearly no longer views Greece's debt as sustainable without a significant reduction in austerity, even if they have not said as much aloud. Nor is that a surprise as the IMF has to be very careful of what it says on such politically sensitive topics. Even the relatively mild language the IMF has deployed has already caused a small earthquake. Only one thing is clear. There is now a major public gap, or rift, in the policy prescriptions of the IMF and Germany. The IMF has made a stand against the agreement signed by Germany, Greece and the EU. This does not suddenly mean they are enemies or antagonists. The IMF has never criticized Germany or its EU partners. The IMF is a partner of Germany, they often share a similar outlook, the IMF is full of Europeans including, I am sure, Germans and is led by a European. The IMF knows they need to continue working together with Germany to solve this debt crisis. They currently disagree on how best to do it. It is unclear at the moment how big a rift there is in the relationship between the IMF and Germany as a result of the IMF's recent actions. So everything else besides the fact that the IMF and Germany now have a different policy outlook is just speculation. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
There is no real need to argue about this  | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
The argument between Merkel and Schäuble is escalating more and more. While Merkel always refused to talk about a Grexit, Schäuble had been suggesting his temporary Grexit idea for the last week, and repeated it again and again in interviews, even after the well known deal (keeping Greece in the Euro) was made. Today he is now cited in a SPIEGEL interview: "Politicians have repsonsibility in their position. Nobody can force them to act against their believes. If somebody would try to do that [= force him to act against his believes], I [Schäuble] could just go to the president and ask him to be released from my office." He is then also admitting, that his own and Merkels position were quite different in the last days, and then lashes out at their coalition partner SPD and their leader, Sigmar Gabriel. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On July 18 2015 07:29 Simberto wrote: I have no idea where you get that idea from, no one claimed anything like that? But good that you can feel superior now. What people mentioned is the fact that China CLAIMS it is communist. The ruling chinese party is the communist party. The fact that they don't really do a lot of communist things nowadays does not change that. (Another problem with communism is that isn't really that well defined, a lot of different people put a lot of different systems into that one hat. Or none at all, always claiming that "x wasn't true communism!".) Many Eurasian, Middle Eastern, and African states claim to be democratic and will talk about democracy, but should we take their claims seriously? In regards to China, it claims to be communist because that is what the nation was founded on and its founding father was a communist. Communism itself is not defined as well as it should be. Such a dissonance is similar to policies in America that is most certainly against liberty, but is defended and upheld using the rhetoric of liberty. Among communists around the world, there is little controversy that Deng Xiaopeng and his successors are not communist. You will see lots of leftists defending Stalin, Mao, and Hoxha for bringing what they see as "actual existing socialism," but never with Deng. Often times, you will hear Marxist-Leninists referring to Deng as a "Revisionist" So when the Berlin Wall fell, there was a lot of debate among policy makers about what to do with a unified Germany and its effects on the balance of power in Europe. Are there any conversations about that popping up right now? | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On July 18 2015 17:15 Shiragaku wrote: So when the Berlin Wall fell, there was a lot of debate among policy makers about what to do with a unified Germany and its effects on the balance of power in Europe. Are there any conversations about that popping up right now? The impression that Germany is dominating the EU is all smoke and mirrors. In reality the structures of the EU and the Eurozone are formed such that Germany's influence is suppressed way below it's share of population or economy. Without allies Germany would be unable to achieve anything. Germany's allies within the EU when it comes to economic policies are not following Germany's lead due to some kind of coercion, they are following Germany's lead due to common interests. Countries like Poland or the Netherlands would never tolerate German hegemony - it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. There is however a tendency that German influence gets exaggerated by both allies and opponents in specific questions, the allies are hiding behind Germany while the opponents use the German bogeyman for propaganda purposes. (By the way, according to current projections it's likely that by 2050 France has surpassed Germany in population) | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On July 18 2015 17:15 Shiragaku wrote: So when the Berlin Wall fell, there was a lot of debate among policy makers about what to do with a unified Germany and its effects on the balance of power in Europe. Are there any conversations about that popping up right now? What would that conversation be about, invading Germany and splitting it up again? o.O I'm sure if you ask some people, e.g. a certain French nationalist in this thread, they will express their regret that Germany was "allowed" to reunite and some of the very same American politicians that have called for more German leadership in the past years are now against it as soon as it does not exactly as the US wants them to (probably because by "more leadership" they just mean "participate in more military adventures without so much annoying parliament involvement"). Concerning balance of power: yeah, you could argue that Germany is the most influential country, but it is the biggest net payer to the EU budgets and more importantly has the biggest population within the EU. Also the way the commission is set up (every country gets exactly one commissioner, even the smallest one - in the current commission, the German representative is responsible for digital industries and development, a very small and uninfluential position; which is actually good, because Oettinger is a very incompetent politician that was retired to Brussels to not annoy anyone back at home) and the fact that the European parliament does not honor the one man=one vote strictly, but instead gives relatively more representation to smaller countries(ever so slightly), should ensure that small countries do have their voice. If a majority would have been for less strict measures, they could have overruled Germany. They didn't and all reports hint that only France, Italy and Cyprus were for less strict measures. So how exaclty is the balance of power effected? | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 18 2015 17:58 Maenander wrote: The impression that Germany is dominating the EU is all smoke and mirrors. In reality the structures of the EU and the Eurozone are formed such that Germany's influence is suppressed way below it's share of population or economy. Without allies Germany would be unable to achieve anything. Germany's allies within the EU when it comes to economic policies are not following Germany's lead due to some kind of coercion, they are following Germany's lead due to common interests. Countries like Poland or the Netherlands would never tolerate German hegemony - it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. There is however a tendency that German influence gets exaggerated by both allies and opponents in specific questions, the allies are hiding behind Germany while the opponents use the German bogeyman for propaganda purposes. (By the way, according to current projections it's likely that by 2050 France has surpassed Germany in population) I'm the french nationalist ? The France I love and am proud of is part of history. I also consider Germany as a brilliant nation - most of the thinkers I consider highly are German, with Weber above all. Just because I criticize modern Germany - just like I criticize France but it's not really worth of an "European" topic since we're just irrelevant - doesn't mean that I don't respect the country nor that I see any value in it. You guys need to be a little less stressed about your identity. Anyway, if you look at history, the euro was a french idea to bind a unified Germany to Europe. Back then Tatcher and Mitterand both were afraid of a Unified Germany - it is the history of modern Europe after all. But french leader - since De Gaule - had the belief that the unification was impossible to prevent. This idea is still very present : not only is it criminal to force a split in Germany, but it is also destined to fail, as the population desire it. So in French newspapers you will never see anyone arguing about that and linking it to the current situation. In the UK the situation is very different ; they always had a more frontal relation with German. As for Germany dominating Europe I somehow agree with you: germany is also a "victim" of the current europe that was not entirely tailored by them but also by the stupid french officials that we talked about some posts ago - Delors and the likes. They never asked for such dominant situation. But Germany is far from being willing to get out of this situation - they have unwillingly become an hegemon and now don't want to let this go. If a majority would have been for less strict measures, they could have overruled Germany. They didn't and all reports hint that only France, Italy and Cyprus were for less strict measures. So how exaclty is the balance of power effected? Don't conflate government and people. In Europe, I'm pretty sure the south is overwhelmingly for less strict measure. But government of Portugal or Spain don't want because it would indeed give credit to opposing forces like Podemos. | ||
|
InVerno
258 Posts
On July 18 2015 18:35 ACrow wrote: What would that conversation be about, invading Germany and splitting it up again? o.O I'm sure if you ask some people, e.g. a certain French nationalist in this thread, they will express their regret that Germany was "allowed" to reunite and some of the very same American politicians that have called for more German leadership in the past years are now against it as soon as it does not exactly as the US wants them to (probably because by "more leadership" they just mean "participate in more military adventures without so much annoying parliament involvement"). Concerning balance of power: yeah, you could argue that Germany is the most influential country, but it is the biggest net payer to the EU budgets and more importantly has the biggest population within the EU. Also the way the commission is set up (every country gets exactly one commissioner, even the smallest one - in the current commission, the German representative is responsible for digital industries and development, a very small and uninfluential position; which is actually good, because Oettinger is a very incompetent politician that was retired to Brussels to not annoy anyone back at home) and the fact that the European parliament does not honor the one man=one vote strictly, but instead gives relatively more representation to smaller countries(ever so slightly), should ensure that small countries do have their voice. If a majority would have been for less strict measures, they could have overruled Germany. They didn't and all reports hint that only France, Italy and Cyprus were for less strict measures. So how exaclty is the balance of power effected? ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKLa-YgWgAEBOq6.png:large) | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
Could you give a little context? Why do you think those graphs, from whatever source they may be, and whatever the arbitrary distinction into north, south and centre is supposed to mean, about satisfaction with democracy have anything to do with the German reunification? I guess you are implying that this is meant to refer to the balance of power and that you take this to mean that the southern countries feel dominated by Germany? Why doesn't a small northern country like Denmark for example feel dominated? Do you really think, that the only reason for dissatisfaction with democracy in those countries, both domestic and EU, could possibly stem from the utter domination of Germany? That can hardly be the case. Heck, I am not very satisfied with how democratic or rather undemocratic the EU institutions are implemented, so depending on the question, I might have answered that I am not satisfied. I cannot see how those graphs are relevant to my post to be honest. | ||
|
sushiman
Sweden2691 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 18 2015 22:49 sushiman wrote: That's just an all around terrible graph. No source, spelling mistakes, no explanation about what constitutes a specific segment, different percentages in the left column skewing the comparison... Untrue (you don't need to compare the two, but rather the different zone anyway). Seems like you are discrediting this graph just because it doesn't go well with your vision of the world. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On July 18 2015 23:05 WhiteDog wrote: Untrue (you don't need to compare the two, but rather the different zone anyway). Seems like you are discrediting this graph just because it doesn't go well with your vision of the world. if you do compare left with right though, you'll see that people in southern europe are happier about the democratic process in the EU than they are about the democratic process in their own countries. So long story short, people in the south don't like the state of democracy right now no matter if we're talking about being represented by the EU or their own state | ||
| ||
