|
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 30 2015 22:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 20:45 kwizach wrote:On July 29 2015 17:36 WhiteDog wrote:On July 29 2015 16:56 Velr wrote:Thats a strange argument when you look at actually existing countries. There are plenty of states with long traditions while hosting diffrent cultures and sometimes languages... Not every Nation went all genocidal on dialects/languages like the French did  . This is only an issue when people feel missrepresented or not treated just/equal. But sadly its perfect fodder for populists. Most values/culture across europe seem pretty similar to me. Sure there are diffrences, but when compared to Asian or African culture these diffrences at best can be described as nuances. As for the GDP Thing. If People have to work several Jobs to make ends meet or rely on stuff like food stamps, i wouldn't actually call that employment, i would call that exploitation and i would favor having 10-20% unemployment over that. Btw I don't think that the GDP growth is such an important number at all. I think the apprenticeship oriented education system is a big plus for the German economy that other countries should think about. It simply makes no sense to get a nursery degree at a university. It's also something that's very prevalent in other countries that have low youth-unemployment This so much. For tons of Jobs an apprenticeship is just a clearly better and more logical way to learn them than "studying" AND it even allows People that didn't like/were just really bad at School to get a decent education. belgium is in disarray with just two language ? The only thing that permit it to work is their historical common hate for the french basically. Belgium has three languages and the Belgians' feelings towards the French (which simply cannot be described as "common hate") have absolutely nothing to do with why it keeps going. On July 29 2015 16:44 WhiteDog wrote:On July 29 2015 16:00 Velr wrote:On July 29 2015 09:49 Evil_Sheep wrote:The problem with the € seems to be that the rest of Europe can't really export like Germany does. Isn't it a mistake to have a common monetary policy between countries which don't have the same economic capabilities? Yes, a big mistake. No it isn't... Sais probably about every country with its own currency ever. What would the poor sates in the US do when they really had compete with the economically strong states? FFS even in tiny Switzerland we got huge payments from economically strong cantons to the weak ones. The mindblowing Issue is, that they created a giant like the € whiteout such a mechanism. The political Union just wasn't and still isn't strong enough for a common currency. No common language, no common value, no common ennemies nor common history : you can't build a state without that. There are states with multiple official languages, the same "values" are not necessarily shared by everyone within a state and you can find generally shared values across the EU, there are states that were created without specific enemies in sight, and the boundaries of "common history" are relative - Europe can be seen to share a common history as a continent. Those are not the relevant criteria to determine whether an "EU state" could one day emerge - what matters is the political will for such a federal state across the EU. Right now, there is no such political will for federalization, so it's not happening. Lately there has been a little bit of momentum building in terms of talks of a more political EU or Eurozone, but such proposals are still far from actual federalization and we'll have to see what gets translated into actual reforms. You need a popular base to create an european state. Plenty of politicians would love to go for federalism in europe, they just know it will not work. There are indeed differences of values (which is obvious) and sometime more than one language in a nation : it is also oftentime the case for states that were eventually built by outside forces (like colonialism for exemple - thus non a democratic genesis) and in which the dissenssion in language are still relevant to explain either a difference in political desires (through vote) or a desire for secession. Not really the kind of situation that could permit the creation of a state (but sure, an already existing state can live on even with a third of its population that would desire to get out).
Fine. Nationalism is still too strong in most of Europe for a pan-European federal state to be viable. But don't come with blablabla about family values, etc. It's just that centuries, if not millennia of war between countries have ingrained wariness towards our fellow Europeans despite the fact that everybody recognizes that Dutch and Germans are actually very similar, and even the Greeks have more in common with Germans than with Turks (despite centuries of domination in the Ottoman empire).
Language is not the point, and you don't need a long line of French kings eradicating Britton, Basque, Occitanian and other minority languages and cultures to do it (nor do you need a Stalinist or Maoist style cleansing). Nor is language the uniting factor: the Flemish fought a war for independence from the Dutch, the Scots are still not quite sure whether they're happy in Great Britain, and the Arabian caliphate(s) splintered into dozens of different countries, who are far further from uniting in a common structure than Europe is, despite having a lot of commonalities in culture, language and religion (probably more even than Europe does).
When kwizach says there is no political will, he clearly doesn't mean that there aren't pro-federation politicians. He means that the majority of the people would not support it, and because we live in democracies, even the pro-federation politicians are bound by the will of their citizens. That lack of will is not because Germans speak German and Dutch speak Dutch, it is because there is a (very realistic) fear that surrendering sovereignty to Europe will cause things that the Dutch (and also the Germans) hold dear, will slowly be eroded by a centralist federal government. And the way the EU has been stomping around making a mess of things for the last 10 years or so has done nothing to assuage those fears.
Imho, the EU in its current form, is doomed. It needs to be reworked from the ground up (something that the treaty of Lisbon tried, but failed miserably at). If you look at Europe, you see a complete disinterest in European elections, and a far stronger interest at the national level. The US (the most successful federation in existence), the problem is the reverse: a lot (if not most) important decisions are made at state level, yet the political interest of the population at state level is virtually non-existent, whereas the federal elections draw far more interest (and this is not just because I view it through international press). Clearly neither is good, and a better balance would be the middle. Europeans need to be educated about the good that the EU has done, is doing and can do for each country. Americans need to remember that state politics matter.
|
On July 30 2015 23:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 22:39 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2015 20:45 kwizach wrote:On July 29 2015 17:36 WhiteDog wrote:On July 29 2015 16:56 Velr wrote:Thats a strange argument when you look at actually existing countries. There are plenty of states with long traditions while hosting diffrent cultures and sometimes languages... Not every Nation went all genocidal on dialects/languages like the French did . This is only an issue when people feel missrepresented or not treated just/equal. But sadly its perfect fodder for populists. Most values/culture across europe seem pretty similar to me. Sure there are diffrences, but when compared to Asian or African culture these diffrences at best can be described as nuances. As for the GDP Thing. If People have to work several Jobs to make ends meet or rely on stuff like food stamps, i wouldn't actually call that employment, i would call that exploitation and i would favor having 10-20% unemployment over that. Btw I don't think that the GDP growth is such an important number at all. I think the apprenticeship oriented education system is a big plus for the German economy that other countries should think about. It simply makes no sense to get a nursery degree at a university. It's also something that's very prevalent in other countries that have low youth-unemployment This so much. For tons of Jobs an apprenticeship is just a clearly better and more logical way to learn them than "studying" AND it even allows People that didn't like/were just really bad at School to get a decent education. belgium is in disarray with just two language ? The only thing that permit it to work is their historical common hate for the french basically. Belgium has three languages and the Belgians' feelings towards the French (which simply cannot be described as "common hate") have absolutely nothing to do with why it keeps going. On July 29 2015 16:44 WhiteDog wrote:On July 29 2015 16:00 Velr wrote:On July 29 2015 09:49 Evil_Sheep wrote:The problem with the € seems to be that the rest of Europe can't really export like Germany does. Isn't it a mistake to have a common monetary policy between countries which don't have the same economic capabilities? Yes, a big mistake. No it isn't... Sais probably about every country with its own currency ever. What would the poor sates in the US do when they really had compete with the economically strong states? FFS even in tiny Switzerland we got huge payments from economically strong cantons to the weak ones. The mindblowing Issue is, that they created a giant like the € whiteout such a mechanism. The political Union just wasn't and still isn't strong enough for a common currency. No common language, no common value, no common ennemies nor common history : you can't build a state without that. There are states with multiple official languages, the same "values" are not necessarily shared by everyone within a state and you can find generally shared values across the EU, there are states that were created without specific enemies in sight, and the boundaries of "common history" are relative - Europe can be seen to share a common history as a continent. Those are not the relevant criteria to determine whether an "EU state" could one day emerge - what matters is the political will for such a federal state across the EU. Right now, there is no such political will for federalization, so it's not happening. Lately there has been a little bit of momentum building in terms of talks of a more political EU or Eurozone, but such proposals are still far from actual federalization and we'll have to see what gets translated into actual reforms. You need a popular base to create an european state. Plenty of politicians would love to go for federalism in europe, they just know it will not work. There are indeed differences of values (which is obvious) and sometime more than one language in a nation : it is also oftentime the case for states that were eventually built by outside forces (like colonialism for exemple - thus non a democratic genesis) and in which the dissenssion in language are still relevant to explain either a difference in political desires (through vote) or a desire for secession. Not really the kind of situation that could permit the creation of a state (but sure, an already existing state can live on even with a third of its population that would desire to get out). Fine. Nationalism is still too strong in most of Europe for a pan-European federal state to be viable. But don't come with blablabla about family values, etc. It's just that centuries, if not millennia of war between countries have ingrained wariness towards our fellow Europeans despite the fact that everybody recognizes that Dutch and Germans are actually very similar, and even the Greeks have more in common with Germans than with Turks (despite centuries of domination in the Ottoman empire). Language is not the point, and you don't need a long line of French kings eradicating Britton, Basque, Occitanian and other minority languages and cultures to do it (nor do you need a Stalinist or Maoist style cleansing). Nor is language the uniting factor: the Flemish fought a war for independence from the Dutch, the Scots are still not quite sure whether they're happy in Great Britain, and the Arabian caliphate(s) splintered into dozens of different countries, who are far further from uniting in a common structure than Europe is, despite having a lot of commonalities in culture, language and religion (probably more even than Europe does). When kwizach says there is no political will, he clearly doesn't mean that there aren't pro-federation politicians. He means that the majority of the people would not support it, and because we live in democracies, even the pro-federation politicians are bound by the will of their citizens. That lack of will is not because Germans speak German and Dutch speak Dutch, it is because there is a (very realistic) fear that surrendering sovereignty to Europe will cause things that the Dutch (and also the Germans) hold dear, will slowly be eroded by a centralist federal government. And the way the EU has been stomping around making a mess of things for the last 10 years or so has done nothing to assuage those fears. Imho, the EU in its current form, is doomed. It needs to be reworked from the ground up (something that the treaty of Lisbon tried, but failed miserably at). If you look at Europe, you see a complete disinterest in European elections, and a far stronger interest at the national level. The US (the most successful federation in existence), the problem is the reverse: a lot (if not most) important decisions are made at state level, yet the political interest of the population at state level is virtually non-existent, whereas the federal elections draw far more interest (and this is not just because I view it through international press). Clearly neither is good, and a better balance would be the middle. Europeans need to be educated about the good that the EU has done, is doing and can do for each country. Americans need to remember that state politics matter.
Where did I say language is the sole factor ? You even take exemple that I even used in previous posts (scots ?). I'm just saying you need some ground - and this ground is usually directly found in the daily life of people and not just a "will" up in the air. This ground can have plenty of faces - language can - off course - be one of those faces (or it can be a common ennemy, a set of common values, etc.). Now think what can be the common ground for europeans ? The market and the competition ? Building a state is not an act of faith.
For exemple, having a unified education in europe could be a big step toward a unification, it could be a stepping stone for a future state to be built upon. But as it is today, it is just impossible.
By the way, language is very important, and it not only the kings that "eradicated" minorities, but also the young republic. And my point about familial structure was made to point out how big the differences in cultural behavior still are in europe - contrary to common belief that we are somewhat all the same (like you seem to believe - there's really not that much in common between Greeks and German from a cultural standpoint).
|
Well, the IMF just made the statement that they will not participate in a new Greek credit programme if there is no debt relief. Since the German government is strictly against debt relief (at least until after Greece has started to recover) and also made IWF participation a precondition for another programme, this is going to be interesting. Someone has to move - with the way Germany has been blamed the last couple of weeks, Merkel will have no choice but to budge I guess, which might give her a headache within her party.
Personally, I'd be glad if the conditions of the deal were to be improved, as it is, it will not benefit anyone (or go for Grexit instead, anything is better than the deal as proposed, but Tsipras seems committed to stay in the Euro at all costs).
Source - The Guardian
|
See, Greece isn't the problem and never was. Among the IMF, Eurgroup and the ECB, they can't find a plan two of them can agree with. But they blame Greece, who hands out a blank check.
|
On July 31 2015 03:51 Alcathous wrote:
See, Greece isn't the problem and never was. Among the IMF, Eurgroup and the ECB, they can't find a plan two of them can agree with. But they blame Greece, who hands out a blank check.
I would say the problem is very much Greece, just not their economy.
When the Greeks started to rebel it changed from an economic problem to a political one and that involves entirely different rules.
Where in the past some debt relief could have been done 'quietly' and with a minimum of fuss you now have strong public opinions influencing politicians who have to worry about their electorates.
The IMF's independence is being called into question because they broke their own rules to help Greece in the first place and now have to act tough.
The Euro-group as a whole who are afraid of anti-euro parties in other southern nations taking over and starting trouble if a rebellious Greece gets their way.
The individual Euro-group countries who face pressure from their people that they don't want to waste more money on "ungrateful" Greeks.
And Greece which doesn't want Euro-group interference but still needs their support to stay afloat.
|
Nothing you say makes any sense. Each sentence you make I would have to ask for a clarification because they all seem to have a completely different reality behind them then the realities I know exist.
IMF independence? Since when is the IMF independent? Called into question? By whom?
The problem is Greece, not their economy? Greeks rebelled? You live in a universe parallel to all the mainstream opinions out there I guess.
|
Fine, ill humor you once again, against my better judgement.
IMF is a world wide organization yet broke its own rules to help a European country (Source.
How would you describe the breaking of the 2012 agreement by the Greek government if not a rebellion against the imposed Austerity?
|
So who broke the rules? IMF or Greece? I know what happened, just confused about what you are trying to argue. I mean, now again you are mixing it up. One sentence IMF broke the rules, the next Greek government did.
Or you mean 'agreement with the Greek government'?
Even if some organization 'broke it's own rules', so what? You say it like it means something. If they had made up different rules in the first place, you wouldn't even need to break them. Making and breaking your own rules, they they are the same thing. Can't make new rules without breaking the first ones.
|
On July 31 2015 05:11 Alcathous wrote:
So who broke the rules? IMF or Greece? I know what happened, just confused about what you are trying to argue. I mean, now again you are mixing it up. One sentence IMF broke the rules, the next Greek government did.
Or you mean 'agreement with the Greek governement'?
See this is why I shouldn't reply because when your arguments get countered you start fishing for dumb stuff.
How about them being 2 separate events.
The IMF broke its rules when it lend to Greece.
Greece broke the 2012 agreement by not implementing the stated reforms.
I'm done with you.
ps.
As for your edit?
Global organization in charge of over 750 billion dollars from 188 countries braking its rules and handing out money it shouldn't is not a thing to you? Sigh.
|
On July 31 2015 05:11 Alcathous wrote:
So who broke the rules? IMF or Greece? I know what happened, just confused about what you are trying to argue. I mean, now again you are mixing it up. One sentence IMF broke the rules, the next Greek government did.
Or you mean 'agreement with the Greek government'?
Even if some organization 'broke it's own rules', so what? You say it like it means something. If they had made up different rules in the first place, you wouldn't even need to break them. Changing your own rules, or breaking them, it's the same thing anyway.
The IMF broke their own rules and, independent of that, the Greek government broke the 2012 agreement with their international lenders.
Also, changing your rules and then acting on the changed rules after any affected party has had time to react to the changed rules is something different than just breaking them. Has to do with reliability and being a trustworthy partner.
I'm not entirely sure where this discussion is going, I think it is very clear that both the Greek government (all of them, present and previous) fucked up and the international lenders made big mistakes, too? Is that something that's disputable?
|
On July 31 2015 05:21 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 05:11 Alcathous wrote:
So who broke the rules? IMF or Greece? I know what happened, just confused about what you are trying to argue. I mean, now again you are mixing it up. One sentence IMF broke the rules, the next Greek government did.
Or you mean 'agreement with the Greek government'?
Even if some organization 'broke it's own rules', so what? You say it like it means something. If they had made up different rules in the first place, you wouldn't even need to break them. Changing your own rules, or breaking them, it's the same thing anyway. I'm not entirely sure where this discussion is going, I think it is very clear that both the Greek government (all of them, present and previous) fucked up and the international lenders made big mistakes, too? Is that something that's disputable?
Unfortunately this is something in dispute. The Syriza government has admitted Greece has made mistakes and apologized for them. The IMF has, in a roundabout and understated way, also admitted it's made mistakes and changed course. But the German government does not accept it's made any mistakes. It seems they truly still believe that the austerity policy is the best and only way and the only reason it's led to two failed bailouts is because there was not enough austerity and therefore more is needed. And not because, you know, austerity actually doesn't work like most of the world's leading economists are saying. It would seem to be common sense to a reasonable person observing these events that everyone's made big mistakes here...but that is not what is actually happening.
|
On July 31 2015 05:58 Evil_Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 05:21 ACrow wrote:On July 31 2015 05:11 Alcathous wrote:
So who broke the rules? IMF or Greece? I know what happened, just confused about what you are trying to argue. I mean, now again you are mixing it up. One sentence IMF broke the rules, the next Greek government did.
Or you mean 'agreement with the Greek government'?
Even if some organization 'broke it's own rules', so what? You say it like it means something. If they had made up different rules in the first place, you wouldn't even need to break them. Changing your own rules, or breaking them, it's the same thing anyway. I'm not entirely sure where this discussion is going, I think it is very clear that both the Greek government (all of them, present and previous) fucked up and the international lenders made big mistakes, too? Is that something that's disputable? Unfortunately this is something in dispute. The Syriza government has admitted Greece has made mistakes and apologized for them. The IMF has, in a roundabout and understated way, also admitted it's made mistakes and changed course. But the German government does not accept it's made any mistakes. It seems they truly still believe that the austerity policy is the best and only way and the only reason it's led to two failed bailouts is because there was not enough austerity and therefore more is needed. And not because, you know, austerity actually doesn't work like most of the world's leading economists are saying. It would seem to be common sense to a reasonable person observing these events that everyone's made big mistakes here...but that is not what is actually happening.
changed course by insisting, that the EU cuts the greek debt (again), while they want all their loans, including 3,6% interest (for comparison, the EU takes about 1,5%) back. Thanks to the saints of the IMF.
And don't bring up the story again about that the rules of the IMF require that and that they have no possibilities to change that... Neither do the rules of the ECB allow any debt cuts... Nor do the loans by the EU nations, which were ratified by the national parliaments, under the promise that they were to be paid back.
But now the IMF wants to see all rules broken, except their own ones... Even though they are the ones making most profit out of this entire mess.
|
Indeed, the IMF is not credible in this. If they believe their own rhetoric, they can fund 100% of the bailout themselves. The problem is, no one really is credible when it comes to this because they all have unsustainable spending levels, and the economic crisis is just bringing that to the forefront.
|
On July 31 2015 06:30 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 05:58 Evil_Sheep wrote:On July 31 2015 05:21 ACrow wrote:On July 31 2015 05:11 Alcathous wrote:
So who broke the rules? IMF or Greece? I know what happened, just confused about what you are trying to argue. I mean, now again you are mixing it up. One sentence IMF broke the rules, the next Greek government did.
Or you mean 'agreement with the Greek government'?
Even if some organization 'broke it's own rules', so what? You say it like it means something. If they had made up different rules in the first place, you wouldn't even need to break them. Changing your own rules, or breaking them, it's the same thing anyway. I'm not entirely sure where this discussion is going, I think it is very clear that both the Greek government (all of them, present and previous) fucked up and the international lenders made big mistakes, too? Is that something that's disputable? Unfortunately this is something in dispute. The Syriza government has admitted Greece has made mistakes and apologized for them. The IMF has, in a roundabout and understated way, also admitted it's made mistakes and changed course. But the German government does not accept it's made any mistakes. It seems they truly still believe that the austerity policy is the best and only way and the only reason it's led to two failed bailouts is because there was not enough austerity and therefore more is needed. And not because, you know, austerity actually doesn't work like most of the world's leading economists are saying. It would seem to be common sense to a reasonable person observing these events that everyone's made big mistakes here...but that is not what is actually happening. changed course by insisting, that the EU cuts the greek debt (again), while they want all their loans, including 3,6% interest (for comparison, the EU takes about 1,5%) back. Thanks to the saints of the IMF.
They've offered a 30-year grace period on Greece's debt repayments, that include their own.
And don't bring up the story again about that the rules of the IMF require that and that they have no possibilities to change that... Neither do the rules of the ECB allow any debt cuts... Nor do the loans by the EU nations, which were ratified by the national parliaments, under the promise that they were to be paid back.
But now the IMF wants to see all rules broken, except their own ones... Even though they are the ones making most profit out of this entire mess.
The IMF is a lot like a bank. They make loans, and they design repayment plans that maximize their ability to recoup those loans at a profit (these profits are reinvested in future loans and are responsibly designed to minimize the contributions of the IMF's member states and make the Fund self-sufficient.) They know they have to design realistic repayment plans or the loans will not be repaid and they will lose their money. The IMF has already participated in two failed bailouts in Greece and been party to a failed austerity policy. Doing so has caused serious damage to their credibility. They have put at jeopardy the funds contributed by their member states. There is simply no way that the IMF can participate in a third bailout from a narrow legal, financial standpoint, that does not put Greece on a sustainable debt repayment path and further jeopardizes IMF funds and credibility. Indeed it is rightfully against their own laws. Doing so would threaten the IMF's very existence.
The IMF has made mistakes and shows signs of learning from them. They may have been stupid enough to participate in two bailouts based on faulty economic premises but even they aren't stupid enough to try doing the same thing that doesn't work a third time. It's like the famous Einstein quote: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." By that definition, what Germany is engaging in right now is a form of madness.
|
They've offered a 30-year grace period on Greece's debt repayments, that include their own.
So how exactly is that a debt cut then? You know, the thing that they want from germany?
|
On July 31 2015 08:03 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +They've offered a 30-year grace period on Greece's debt repayments, that include their own.
So how exactly is that a debt cut then? You know, the thing that they want from germany?
Oh come on, it's the same thing.
I will loan you money, and you don't have to pay it back for 30 years is basically the same as saying I will loan you money, and then you have to pay me back 40% of that starting tomorrow, but I will gift you the other 60% (assuming annual inflation rate of 3%, which is currently more than it actually is, but is a reasonable average).
|
On July 31 2015 03:41 ACrow wrote:Well, the IMF just made the statement that they will not participate in a new Greek credit programme if there is no debt relief. Since the German government is strictly against debt relief (at least until after Greece has started to recover) and also made IWF participation a precondition for another programme, this is going to be interesting. Someone has to move - with the way Germany has been blamed the last couple of weeks, Merkel will have no choice but to budge I guess, which might give her a headache within her party. Personally, I'd be glad if the conditions of the deal were to be improved, as it is, it will not benefit anyone (or go for Grexit instead, anything is better than the deal as proposed, but Tsipras seems committed to stay in the Euro at all costs). Source - The Guardian Why is it so hard for non-German journalists to understand basic timing and actually try to understand statements from German politicians?
It is very simple, they start negotiations with Greece now, that will lead to a document signed by all. In this agreement there will be repay grace periods set on certain 'fulfillment conditions'. And yes, if you would listen to Schäuble and Merkel you would know, that Germany is fully on board with this, since it is exactly what was agreed on in these late Sunday early Monday talks. And when all other parties sign the deal, the IMF signs as well of course (since their requirements are then met).
It boggles my mind how 'professional journalists' can be so slow-witted, that they still can't figure this out.
|
You are really asking for a journalist to 'just listen to a politician', wow.
All politicians lie, always.
I hope at least half the journalists out there know this, and thank heaven at least realize that all politicians like/have to lie eventually. But I guess it takes a UK journalist not to take the word of a German politician and report it as truth to the plebs.
Or maybe they are just slow-witted, who knows. Depends on which parallel universe you live in.
Either way, if you ever need to loan money, ask a German. You will never have to pay it back because they are too greedy to take a haircut. Just be aware, they might just destroy everything in sight, including their own economy, if they don't get their greed satisfied.
|
On July 31 2015 09:14 Alcathous wrote:
Either way, if you ever need to loan money, ask a German. You will never have to pay it back because they are too greedy to take a haircut. Just be aware, they might just destroy everything in sight, including their own economy, if they don't get their greed satisfied.
Well I don't think that's fair. I've said it before, I think the Germans have good intentions, if they had bad intentions they wouldn't be bailing out anyone. Everyone in this drama has good intentions, the Germans, the Greeks, they all have demonstrated they want to be good Europeans. It's just that the economic models used by the Germans are missing information and could be improved, but they are unable to admit they may be wrong. That's why I feel this is a solveable crisis. Everyone's on the same page, everyone's agreed that they want to keep the EU together, everyone's shown they are willing to sacrifice for the greater good of Europe. There are no villains here, there is no need for hate and animosity. This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. What's really at the heart of this current crisis is, in my opinion, a simple but fundamental misunderstanding of how macroeconomics works.
|
On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it.
Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years.
The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind.
Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
