|
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 August 12 2015 05:33 cLutZ wrote:
I think you are overlooking how the populace in those countries was already a "First World" population that had the skills/etc necessary to compete globally, they just also had a totally destroyed infrastructure and had lost a sizable portion of their young male population. Those are not systemic problems that prevent competitiveness, they are more akin to a liquidity crisis. If that was an apt analogy to the Greek situation, the infusion of cheap capital in the 15 years prior to the 2007 crisis would have spurred an economic miracle there as well.
It is a lot like how the "big banks" almost immediately paid back their bailout money. Because they needed $1billion for a few months, but then even if you charged them double, they could pay that back a year later. On the other hand GM and Chrysler will never pay back the loans fully because their issues were systemic and just exacerbated by the crash.
Imo you are underestimating the effect of the 2nd WW and what we are actually discussing : the 30 glorious were a constant growth for a little less than 30 years at 5 % on average. It's not really about getting back to pre war levels of GDP, but rather growing at the highest rate and the longest time in history of mankind.
What europe had after the war were institutions and a functionning state (for most countries), but not skills or industries. Most industries were destroyed - look at what Germany had left after the war, something like 20 % of its production capacities ? - and most of all many men died, most of the skill you talk about left with them. If you think this is similar to a iquidity crisis, I don't know what to say.
|
I don't agree that much of the 'intelligentsia' was lost, sure some scientists fled the regime or located to the US afterwards, but all the huge companies that were and are so important for the German economy were still there. I mean it's even a criticism that comes up today that a lot of them got away a little too easy. All European countries had to rebuild sure, but it's not like our whole culture or experience was gone.
If it would've been just a matter of foreign support we would have fewer poor nations on this planet.
|
2% of American GDP was the average in Europe, never said it was the case in Japan - it was 30 % of Japan's trade, it's big, especially for an excedentary country such as the US (and an economic powerhouse).
The second part is ridiculous, why was Europe unable to recover without germany ? Half it's history Europe didn't have a Germany to begin with. Even today actually Europe economy is not linked at all to Germany's performance since it's a country that is heavily developped around exports (an increase in GDP in Germany does not create a subtential increase in demand that afterward support growth for the entire european zone).
The 2% of GDP figure can only refer to the ERP or Marshall Plan figure, in which case your OP was simply exaggerating for effect: Germany received about a tenth of ERP funds, which totalled 2%, so in the case of Germany the figure is more akin to 0.2%.
France needed German coal to revitalise her postwar steel industry, and under the Monnet Plan, it was proposed to bring Saar and Ruhr coal under French control, while requisitioning presently-existing German coal and machinery, and introducing forced German labour to French industry. The postwar French plan was to destroy German economic and military potential on a permanent basis, but realistically, there was no way to achieve this short of measures amounting to permanent slavery. Secondly, the plan never got off the ground because the American PPS under Marshall and Kennan were already looking to the economic rehabilitation of Germany by tying her coal and steel resources to a common European market (as articulated in PPS 23.) The French had to go along with the American position in the end because she desperately needed American support in the colonies, and American security guarantees in Europe. However, a permanent American military commitment to the defense of Europe was the price that the French government extracted from the US.
German recovery was a tiered development which was dependent on primary resource exports until c. 1952. The first postwar year in which Germany managed a trade surplus was 1950, due to the revival of coal production; in 1951 she registered a trade deficit again as she imported capital equipment, and it was only in 1952 that she managed to form a trade surplus based on manufactured goods.
So 1 % of the US GDP (which was huge at the time compared to the crushed european economy) is political and psychological ?
Yes; it was not the amount of money that was used in the Marshall Plan (the United States was already bankrolling Western Europe to like proportions anyhow) but the structure of the aid, whose intent was to revitalise the self-confidence of Western Europe, and give them a sense of hope for the future. This was anyhow, the thought process behind the PPS's planning in 1947.
You don't seems to make any difference between a "recovery" and what happened, which is (in France for exemple) 5 % gdp growth as average for more than a decade and - more than anything - Europe catching up with the biggest economy at the time, the US : it's the highest growth in history. Africa grow at a good rate right now, it's not going to catch up Europe or the US in the last 20 years.
The relevant claim is that American "aid" was responsible for German and Japan's economic "miracle"; and as Germany and Japan were economically independent by the 50s, the only years in which this claim might apply is the immediate postwar period. Incidentally, in Europe, the growth rates of the major economies were the inverse of the proportion of American aid they received: the highest growth rates of the 50s were in descending order: West Germany, Italy, France, the UK. The amount of aid received were, in ascending order: West Germany, Italy, France, the UK.
That's also a very ridiculous comment ; the deficit of europe balance account was not due to "self sufficiency" but rather to Bretton Woods - fixed exchange rate.
It was the policy of both the UK and France to maintain a strong currency in the postwar governments; the UK attempted to support the value of the pound with its own set of pegs in the Sterling Area, and France attempted to maintain a multiple exchange rate mechanism to control the prices in specific economic sectors.
Also, the relevance of the exchange rate implies that Western Europe had something to export to the US in the postwar era, which they did not.
|
On August 12 2015 06:15 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +2% of American GDP was the average in Europe, never said it was the case in Japan - it was 30 % of Japan's trade, it's big, especially for an excedentary country such as the US (and an economic powerhouse).
The second part is ridiculous, why was Europe unable to recover without germany ? Half it's history Europe didn't have a Germany to begin with. Even today actually Europe economy is not linked at all to Germany's performance since it's a country that is heavily developped around exports (an increase in GDP in Germany does not create a subtential increase in demand that afterward support growth for the entire european zone). The 2% of GDP figure can only refer to the ERP or Marshall Plan figure, in which case your OP was simply exaggerating for effect: Germany received about a tenth of ERP funds, which totalled 2%, so in the case of Germany the figure is more akin to 0.2%. France needed German coal to revitalise her postwar steel industry, and under the Monnet Plan, it was proposed to bring Saar and Ruhr coal under French control, while requisitioning presently-existing German coal and machinery, and introducing forced German labour to French industry. The postwar French plan was to destroy German economic and military potential on a permanent basis, but realistically, there was no way to achieve this short of measures amounting to permanent slavery. Secondly, the plan never got off the ground because the American PPS under Marshall and Kennan were already looking to the economic rehabilitation of Germany by tying her coal and steel resources to a common European market (as articulated in PPS 23.) The French had to go along with the American position in the end because she desperately needed American support in the colonies, and American security guarantees in Europe. However, a permanent American military commitment to the defense of Europe was the price that the French government extracted from the US. German recovery was a tiered development which was dependent on primary resource exports until c. 1952. The first postwar year in which Germany managed a trade surplus was 1950, due to the revival of coal production; in 1951 she registered a trade deficit again as she imported capital equipment, and it was only in 1952 that she managed to form a trade surplus based on manufactured goods. Show nested quote +So 1 % of the US GDP (which was huge at the time compared to the crushed european economy) is political and psychological ? Yes; it was not the amount of money that was used in the Marshall Plan (the United States was already bankrolling Western Europe to like proportions anyhow) but the structure of the aid, whose intent was to revitalise the self-confidence of Western Europe, and give them a sense of hope for the future. This was anyhow, the thought process behind the PPS's planning in 1947. Show nested quote +You don't seems to make any difference between a "recovery" and what happened, which is (in France for exemple) 5 % gdp growth as average for more than a decade and - more than anything - Europe catching up with the biggest economy at the time, the US : it's the highest growth in history. Africa grow at a good rate right now, it's not going to catch up Europe or the US in the last 20 years. The relevant claim is that American "aid" was responsible for German and Japan's economic "miracle"; and as Germany and Japan were economically independent by the 50s, the only years in which this claim might apply is the immediate postwar period. Incidentally, in Europe, the growth rates of the major economies were the inverse of the proportion of American aid they received: the highest growth rates of the 50s were in descending order: West Germany, Italy, France, the UK. The amount of aid received were, in ascending order: West Germany, Italy, France, the UK. Show nested quote +That's also a very ridiculous comment ; the deficit of europe balance account was not due to "self sufficiency" but rather to Bretton Woods - fixed exchange rate. It was the policy of both the UK and France to maintain a strong currency in the postwar governments; the UK attempted to support the value of the pound with its own set of pegs in the Sterling Area, and France attempted to maintain a multiple exchange rate mechanism to control the prices in specific economic sectors. Also, the relevance of the exchange rate implies that Western Europe had something to export to the US in the postwar era, which they did not.
Percentile growth is quite easy when absolutely everything is destroyed. Most of France escaped the war relatively unscathed (basically, the war was fought between Normandie and the Ardennes, or roughly 1/3 or even 1/4 of France. The rest was hardly touched. The UK was bombed heavily by the Germans, but they still got through it with far more infrastructure intact than Germany. Italy is a bit of an odd country in this equation, because its economy was mostly based on agriculture, and thus never really very industrialized to begin with.
The causal link you imply between Marshal plan money and hampering economic growth is dubious at best, and a flatout lie at worst.
|
On August 12 2015 07:06 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2015 06:15 MoltkeWarding wrote:2% of American GDP was the average in Europe, never said it was the case in Japan - it was 30 % of Japan's trade, it's big, especially for an excedentary country such as the US (and an economic powerhouse).
The second part is ridiculous, why was Europe unable to recover without germany ? Half it's history Europe didn't have a Germany to begin with. Even today actually Europe economy is not linked at all to Germany's performance since it's a country that is heavily developped around exports (an increase in GDP in Germany does not create a subtential increase in demand that afterward support growth for the entire european zone). The 2% of GDP figure can only refer to the ERP or Marshall Plan figure, in which case your OP was simply exaggerating for effect: Germany received about a tenth of ERP funds, which totalled 2%, so in the case of Germany the figure is more akin to 0.2%. France needed German coal to revitalise her postwar steel industry, and under the Monnet Plan, it was proposed to bring Saar and Ruhr coal under French control, while requisitioning presently-existing German coal and machinery, and introducing forced German labour to French industry. The postwar French plan was to destroy German economic and military potential on a permanent basis, but realistically, there was no way to achieve this short of measures amounting to permanent slavery. Secondly, the plan never got off the ground because the American PPS under Marshall and Kennan were already looking to the economic rehabilitation of Germany by tying her coal and steel resources to a common European market (as articulated in PPS 23.) The French had to go along with the American position in the end because she desperately needed American support in the colonies, and American security guarantees in Europe. However, a permanent American military commitment to the defense of Europe was the price that the French government extracted from the US. German recovery was a tiered development which was dependent on primary resource exports until c. 1952. The first postwar year in which Germany managed a trade surplus was 1950, due to the revival of coal production; in 1951 she registered a trade deficit again as she imported capital equipment, and it was only in 1952 that she managed to form a trade surplus based on manufactured goods. So 1 % of the US GDP (which was huge at the time compared to the crushed european economy) is political and psychological ? Yes; it was not the amount of money that was used in the Marshall Plan (the United States was already bankrolling Western Europe to like proportions anyhow) but the structure of the aid, whose intent was to revitalise the self-confidence of Western Europe, and give them a sense of hope for the future. This was anyhow, the thought process behind the PPS's planning in 1947. You don't seems to make any difference between a "recovery" and what happened, which is (in France for exemple) 5 % gdp growth as average for more than a decade and - more than anything - Europe catching up with the biggest economy at the time, the US : it's the highest growth in history. Africa grow at a good rate right now, it's not going to catch up Europe or the US in the last 20 years. The relevant claim is that American "aid" was responsible for German and Japan's economic "miracle"; and as Germany and Japan were economically independent by the 50s, the only years in which this claim might apply is the immediate postwar period. Incidentally, in Europe, the growth rates of the major economies were the inverse of the proportion of American aid they received: the highest growth rates of the 50s were in descending order: West Germany, Italy, France, the UK. The amount of aid received were, in ascending order: West Germany, Italy, France, the UK. That's also a very ridiculous comment ; the deficit of europe balance account was not due to "self sufficiency" but rather to Bretton Woods - fixed exchange rate. It was the policy of both the UK and France to maintain a strong currency in the postwar governments; the UK attempted to support the value of the pound with its own set of pegs in the Sterling Area, and France attempted to maintain a multiple exchange rate mechanism to control the prices in specific economic sectors. Also, the relevance of the exchange rate implies that Western Europe had something to export to the US in the postwar era, which they did not. Percentile growth is quite easy when absolutely everything is destroyed. Most of France escaped the war relatively unscathed (basically, the war was fought between Normandie and the Ardennes, or roughly 1/3 or even 1/4 of France. The rest was hardly touched. The UK was bombed heavily by the Germans, but they still got through it with far more infrastructure intact than Germany. Italy is a bit of an odd country in this equation, because its economy was mostly based on agriculture, and thus never really very industrialized to begin with. The causal link you imply between Marshal plan money and hampering economic growth is dubious at best, and a flatout lie at worst.
I am not an economist, but a historian. My purpose is not to establish causal links, but to destroy them.
Also, for the time frame we are talking about, West Germany overtook the UK in absolute terms in 1958, although the tipping point came several years earlier due to the overvalued British pound vs the German mark, even after the devaluation of 1949.
The story of each nation is sui generis, and requires a cross-spectrum explanation which is a little more complicated than the story told by WhiteDog, and through him, Mr. Varoufakis. That is the material point.
|
Well it will come as no surprise to anyone who's been following this issue, but the initial assessment by economists is pessimistic.
Aka: can successfully kicked.
I will be curious to find out if the IMF will go along with all this or stand its ground.
|
3.5% Primary surplus is lol-worthy on its own.
|
On August 12 2015 12:02 Evil_Sheep wrote:Well it will come as no surprise to anyone who's been following this issue, but the initial assessment by economists is pessimistic. Aka: can successfully kicked. I will be curious to find out if the IMF will go along with all this or stand its ground.
"Can kicking" has pretty much been the plan since 2010. It's not going to end well.
|
Yeah I have to agree, expecting growths like that is utter fantasy considering the state of Greece and the fragility of the world economy.
|
On August 12 2015 06:15 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +2% of American GDP was the average in Europe, never said it was the case in Japan - it was 30 % of Japan's trade, it's big, especially for an excedentary country such as the US (and an economic powerhouse).
The second part is ridiculous, why was Europe unable to recover without germany ? Half it's history Europe didn't have a Germany to begin with. Even today actually Europe economy is not linked at all to Germany's performance since it's a country that is heavily developped around exports (an increase in GDP in Germany does not create a subtential increase in demand that afterward support growth for the entire european zone). The 2% of GDP figure can only refer to the ERP or Marshall Plan figure, in which case your OP was simply exaggerating for effect: Germany received about a tenth of ERP funds, which totalled 2%, so in the case of Germany the figure is more akin to 0.2%. France needed German coal to revitalise her postwar steel industry, and under the Monnet Plan, it was proposed to bring Saar and Ruhr coal under French control, while requisitioning presently-existing German coal and machinery, and introducing forced German labour to French industry. The postwar French plan was to destroy German economic and military potential on a permanent basis, but realistically, there was no way to achieve this short of measures amounting to permanent slavery. Secondly, the plan never got off the ground because the American PPS under Marshall and Kennan were already looking to the economic rehabilitation of Germany by tying her coal and steel resources to a common European market (as articulated in PPS 23.) The French had to go along with the American position in the end because she desperately needed American support in the colonies, and American security guarantees in Europe. However, a permanent American military commitment to the defense of Europe was the price that the French government extracted from the US. German recovery was a tiered development which was dependent on primary resource exports until c. 1952. The first postwar year in which Germany managed a trade surplus was 1950, due to the revival of coal production; in 1951 she registered a trade deficit again as she imported capital equipment, and it was only in 1952 that she managed to form a trade surplus based on manufactured goods. Show nested quote +So 1 % of the US GDP (which was huge at the time compared to the crushed european economy) is political and psychological ? Yes; it was not the amount of money that was used in the Marshall Plan (the United States was already bankrolling Western Europe to like proportions anyhow) but the structure of the aid, whose intent was to revitalise the self-confidence of Western Europe, and give them a sense of hope for the future. This was anyhow, the thought process behind the PPS's planning in 1947. Show nested quote +You don't seems to make any difference between a "recovery" and what happened, which is (in France for exemple) 5 % gdp growth as average for more than a decade and - more than anything - Europe catching up with the biggest economy at the time, the US : it's the highest growth in history. Africa grow at a good rate right now, it's not going to catch up Europe or the US in the last 20 years. The relevant claim is that American "aid" was responsible for German and Japan's economic "miracle"; and as Germany and Japan were economically independent by the 50s, the only years in which this claim might apply is the immediate postwar period. Incidentally, in Europe, the growth rates of the major economies were the inverse of the proportion of American aid they received: the highest growth rates of the 50s were in descending order: West Germany, Italy, France, the UK. The amount of aid received were, in ascending order: West Germany, Italy, France, the UK. Show nested quote +That's also a very ridiculous comment ; the deficit of europe balance account was not due to "self sufficiency" but rather to Bretton Woods - fixed exchange rate. It was the policy of both the UK and France to maintain a strong currency in the postwar governments; the UK attempted to support the value of the pound with its own set of pegs in the Sterling Area, and France attempted to maintain a multiple exchange rate mechanism to control the prices in specific economic sectors. Also, the relevance of the exchange rate implies that Western Europe had something to export to the US in the postwar era, which they did not.
You have a very simple view of history. Like France needed anything from Germany (it's actually the opposite, since Germany had no primary ressources and we still had colonies - all France wanted at the time was to put down Germany - but again I am talking about the US and not France), De Gaulle's faction at the time voted against the creation of the ESCS. About the end, saying that the UK and France desired to maintain a strong currency is irrelevant to the point : bretton woods was tailored by the US, and Keynes propositions (UK's propositions) were not taken.
About the economic effect of the plan and of overall what the US represented from a demand standpoint, I again reiterate that you cannot talk about what happened from 45 to 75 with a simple recovery, which it is not.
The fact that they had or had no export is also dubious : of course they had none because their currency was fixed with the US, and could not appreciate to a level that could permit them exchange (which is a very low level) - in the Bretton Wood era, currency could only reevaluate their currency at + or - 1%.
German recovery was a tiered development which was dependent on primary resource exports until c. 1952. The first postwar year in which Germany managed a trade surplus was 1950, due to the revival of coal production; in 1951 she registered a trade deficit again as she imported capital equipment, and it was only in 1952 that she managed to form a trade surplus based on manufactured goods.
Not sure if you're actually aware of what you posted there. 7 years to manage a trade surplus is huge, France can't seem to do that 7 years after the crisis.
|
I find it weird how so many people think a 3,5% surplus in a few years is not possible for Greece. It's like in a stock market crash where everybody thinks the end of the world is near and then surprise some time in the future there is a recovery.
Keep in mind that Greece's economy is on decline for several years now. Calculate for yourself what a 3.5% rise in three years time actually means. It's difficult to achieve, yeah, but impossible? I don't see why.
|
On August 12 2015 20:38 Banaora wrote:
I find it weird how so many people think a 3,5% surplus in a few years is not possible for Greece. It's like in a stock market crash where everybody thinks the end of the world is near and then surprise some time in the future there is a recovery.
Keep in mind that Greece's economy is on decline for several years now. Calculate for yourself what a 3.5% rise in three years time actually means. It's difficult to achieve, yeah, but impossible? I don't see why.
Because Greece needs to cut to set itself on the road to long term economic stability. Its public sector is still bloated. Its currently running pensions are still a problem.
Its not that they are at 0 now and the road ahead is only going up.
|
On August 12 2015 20:38 Banaora wrote:
I find it weird how so many people think a 3,5% surplus in a few years is not possible for Greece. It's like in a stock market crash where everybody thinks the end of the world is near and then surprise some time in the future there is a recovery.
Keep in mind that Greece's economy is on decline for several years now. Calculate for yourself what a 3.5% rise in three years time actually means. It's difficult to achieve, yeah, but impossible? I don't see why.
I don't think impossible either, nothing's impossible, especially in economics which is a soft discipline not a hard one, and subject to all sorts of unpredictable external factors. But very difficult and unlikely. The opinion of many of the world's top economists is that a pro-cyclical 3.5% primary budget surplus combined with the euro straitjacket puts Greece into a depressive spiral which is difficult to escape. Indeed, it is exactly the result we have been witnessing for the last few years.
The second reason for skepticism is that Greece is expected to maintain this 3.5% budget surplus not just for a year but for decades unwaveringly... those with experience in these matters such as the IMF can find no instances where a country has been able to maintain such rigorous discipline. Indeed, as some commentators have pointed out, Germany's own history of punitive debts imposed from abroad provides little optimism for a successful outcome.
Even the German government appears to lack belief in its own bailout program. According to internal German government documents, their analysis has "questioned whether the IMF supported the new deal, objected that the new rescue plan failed to address Greece’s debt sustainability and attacked a proposed delay in setting up a new privatisation trust fund that is supposed to hold Greek assets worth €50bn." As we know, skepticism of their own bailout plan goes right to the top of the finance ministry. Having utterly failed to move the Greek crisis towards a successful resolution, it would seem that Wolfgang Schäuble's preferred "solution" is now to cut Greece adrift from Europe and wash his hands of the whole affair.
What's becoming increasingly clear in this crisis is that German policymakers making economic decisions affecting all of Europe have no idea what they're doing.
|
Edit, made a separate topic
|
On August 13 2015 07:28 whatisthisasheep wrote:
Their a huge explosion in China killing many people
You should probably make a separate topic about it since its very off topic.
|
3rd bailout officially signed.
Schäuble 8h ago: IMF involvement is precondition for Germany.
8h later: no IMF involvement, IMF appears to be holding its ground, repeats its earlier position calling for debt relief and saying EU must go much farther or it won't be involved.
+ Show Spoiler +Christine Lagarde:![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMZR_sJWUAAWF8-.jpg)
Finland's Finance Minister Alex Stubb states the dilemma clearly: "We want the IMF to be involved but we don’t want debt relief."
Frankly Germany and its northern allies don't seem to be willing to consider real debt relief, and therefore IMF involvement appears impossible.
And EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker ends the press conference with a joke: "But today the message of today’s Eurogroup is loud and clear: on this basis, Greece is and will irreversibly remain a member of the Euro area."
|
|
|
On August 15 2015 07:34 Evil_Sheep wrote:3rd bailout officially signed. Schäuble 8h ago: IMF involvement is precondition for Germany.8h later: no IMF involvement, IMF appears to be holding its ground, repeats its earlier position calling for debt relief and saying EU must go much farther or it won't be involved. + Show Spoiler +Christine Lagarde: Finland's Finance Minister Alex Stubb states the dilemma clearly: "We want the IMF to be involved but we don’t want debt relief."Frankly Germany and its northern allies don't seem to be willing to consider real debt relief, and therefore IMF involvement appears impossible. And EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker ends the press conference with a joke: "But today the message of today’s Eurogroup is loud and clear: on this basis, Greece is and will irreversibly remain a member of the Euro area."
Politicians betraying the wish of their populace on all fronts. Hurray EU, you undemocratic monster!
|
Eu is having a immigration crisis
http://news.yahoo.com/look-latest-developments-europes-migrant-crisis-102221820.html
Record numbers of migrants from countries like Syria and Eritrea are trying to reach Europe, despite the risks from perilous sea crossings and the inability of countries to provide adequate humanitarian assistance. Here are the latest developments Tuesday:
TURKEY: Six migrants drowned off Turkey's coast while trying to reach islands in Greece. Five bodies were unloaded in the western tourist town of Bodrum, and a rescue team later found a baby's body. About 20 others were rescued and taken to a harbor in the nearby town of Turgutreis.
In another rescue operation, a Doctors Without Borders medical team heading for the Greek island of Leros happened upon a boat carrying 40 migrants, some of whom were in the sea. It picked them up and took them to the Greek island of Kos.
It is unclear how many migrants may have died between Bodrum and Kos, which is only four kilometers (2.5 miles) from Turkey at its closest point, making it one of the shortest routes across the Aegean Sea.
___
HUMANITARIAN AID: The German Red Cross says it will distribute hygiene kits to migrants to try to prevent disease from spreading as they arrive on the Greek island of Lesbos.
The aid organization said that starting in mid-September it will hand out more than 19,000 kits, including a two-month supply of toothpaste, soap, laundry detergent, baby-care products and diapers.
The head of the German Red Cross, Rudolf Seiters, called the situation on Lesbos desolate and said many of the migrants are weakened, have to sleep on the floor and have no access to medical care.
___
SMUGGLERS: In Italy, authorities detained eight suspected smugglers in the deaths of 49 migrants trapped inside the hold of an overcrowded fishing vessel over the weekend.
View gallery
Migrants, including children run on a beach near the …
Migrants, including children run on a beach near the coastal town of Bodrum, Turkey, to board a ding …
Prosecutor Michelangelo Patane said in Catania that a Moroccan was the captain of the ship, while the other seven — four Libyans, two Moroccans and a Syrian minor — used violence to keep order. Patane said the air below deck wasn't breathable because of the number of people and engine fumes.
Smugglers hit those trying to get out with belts and kicked them in the head, "preventing them from having some chance of survival."
___
GREECE: A spokesman for the U.N. refugee agency called on Greek authorities to show greater leadership and appoint someone to coordinate the aid operation on some of its smaller islands.
"It's very difficult for us to start working on the ground if we don't have somebody who is in charge," UNHCR spokesman William Spindler told reporters in Geneva.
___
STATISTICS: Greece's coast guard says it rescued 576 migrants in 23 search and rescue operations off the coasts of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Agathonisi and Kos in the 24 hours from Monday to Tuesday morning. Greece has reported more than 135,000 arrivals from Turkey this year.
Italian Interior Minister Angelino Alfano said over the weekend that as of Saturday, 103,000 migrants had been rescued at sea and brought to Italy in operations coordinated by the Italian coast guard. Along with other migrants landing in Spain and Malta, that means more than 243,000 people have crossed so far this year, compared to 219,000 for all of 2014.
The International Organization for Migration estimates that at least 2,300 people have died this year trying to cross to Europe.
|
The immigration politics of the EU have been a humanitarian disaster for many years.
Not very surprising that its turning out like this right now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
