EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 243
| 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. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On August 22 2015 15:33 cLutZ wrote: The grexit's possibility is the problem though. Default without grexit would cause no trouble to non government Greeks if non Greeks believed it, but, of course, no one would believe them. I'm not sure I exactly understand what you're saying, that normal Greeks wouldn't be affected by a default? Yes they would, we just had a preview of what a unilateral default would look like. Insolvent Greece would run out of euros, the ECB would cut them off and none would be forthcoming in the absence of an agreement, the country would quickly run out of hard currency and at that point, literally the ATM's are empty. Then Grexit is unavoidable. That's why unilateral default inevitably leads to Grexit. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/amsterdam-paris-train-gunman-france | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On August 22 2015 05:25 mahrgell wrote: Right now it looks like he will get a much stronger and more loyal government out of new elections. Currently almost half his own party is voting against him, he is in a coalition with some right wing crazies, and had to use opposition votes to get through with his new program. With reelections, he can simply clean up his own party, make sure, that all candidates/MPs of his own party will vote for his stuff. Even though it is hard to understand, somehow the Greek want to vote for him right now. He may actually even get to rule without any coalition partner. And even if he needs some partner, it may cause some trouble, but he will end in a much better position then now. The move is opportunistic... but certainly not weak. If he waits with it for another half year, negative backslashes from the new social system cuts may drop his reputation rapidly, ruining his chances in any reelection, By going through elections now he can stabilize his government, and get in the votes for his program before people feel the negative consequences. So not sure how timing an election to the point, where you are the highest in polls, can be considered a sign of weakness. So we are banking on tsipras betraying the Greece population during the election. Get elected,now that there is some money flowing into Greece again and before most of the reforms and cuts have been implemented. And then after the election he will go in full force and implement the whole agreement. Was not aware that he has high support ratings atm,it seems weird to me as I clearly remember seeing the riots on tv after he did accept the agreement. Most of the people also voted against the agreement in the referendum. Yet they are now all in support of the man who agreed with it and who will implement it? If he will win the election and implement the agreement then it was a strong move I agree,it will prevent lots of problems in the future. But it is a huge risk,what if he does not win the election of if it wont be possible to form a clear majority? Another election and another delay,new negotiations? The reality is that while the Greece parlement did accept the agreement, there is not enough support to actually start implementing it,and therefor new elections are needed. At least that is what it looks like. Endless negotiations and delay,referendum,election. Its all such a waste of time. It takes ages to chance things and get things done and that is one of the roots of all the problems. All this to push the germans into finally accepting a haircut, well we will see. | ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On August 22 2015 16:53 maartendq wrote: Apparently two American soldiers in civilian clothing managed to overpower a gunman wielding a Kalashnikov assault rifle on a Thalys high-speed train between Amsterdam and Paris. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/amsterdam-paris-train-gunman-france Yes, someone posted earlier. Not exactly on topic but, it's sad that Americans know exactly what to do in a mass shooting since there's one there almost every week. The word gets bandied around far too easily but in this case fully deserved: heroes. Could've been another Charlie Hebdo but now it'll be just a footnote. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
And that soldiers, stationed abroad (which usually implies more then just a few months basic training) know how to deal with such a situation has not much to do with them being American. | ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On August 22 2015 19:00 mahrgell wrote: In Germany it is on top of all news... not a footnote. A historical footnote. And that soldiers, stationed abroad (which usually implies more then just a few months basic training) know how to deal with such a situation has not much to do with them being American. I refer to a general American mentality to react instantly to these kinds of mass shootings and attempt to confront the attacker when possible, which is not normal in the rest of the world. In this case, they happen to be soldiers, but I'm not sure it's a given for everyone to make the instant decision to rush at someone armed with multiple weapons when you are unarmed. They got lucky his gun jammed. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 22 2015 19:36 Evil_Sheep wrote: A historical footnote. I refer to a general American mentality to react instantly to these kinds of mass shootings and attempt to confront the attacker when possible, which is not normal in the rest of the world. In this case, they happen to be soldiers, but I'm not sure it's a given for everyone to make the instant decision to rush at someone armed with multiple weapons when you are unarmed. They got lucky his gun jammed. That is the American post 9/11 mentality. Passengers have stopped several airline bombings by swarming the terrorist (as opposed to 0 for the TSA). | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On August 22 2015 23:02 cLutZ wrote: That is the American post 9/11 mentality. Passengers have stopped several airline bombings by swarming the terrorist (as opposed to 0 for the TSA). 9/11 was a "Zero-Day" Attack strategy. It worked for 90 minutes. There's a reason Flight 93 went down in Pennsylvania. It won't ever work again, unless the entire flight is made up of terrorists. Some of the early reports had one of the Americans as pretty injured, though later reports seem to indicate that was wrong. I hope everyone is in good health after the incident. As for shots at mass shootings in the States, that's not why you jump on an attacker quickly. It's fairly straight forward (and has been for a long while) combat tactics for dealing with an active attacker. You simply don't want them to get settled in and start shooting. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2715 Posts
It seems like terrorists and criminals get gun problems very frequently, I'm assuming because they have shit guns with 0 maintenance and very little training in how to handle guns which is very fortunate. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On August 22 2015 18:35 Evil_Sheep wrote: Yes, someone posted earlier. Not exactly on topic but, it's sad that Americans know exactly what to do in a mass shooting since there's one there almost every week. The word gets bandied around far too easily but in this case fully deserved: heroes. Could've been another Charlie Hebdo but now it'll be just a footnote. Pretty sure the only actions that have any merit in those situations are either: A) Get out of there ASAP B) Stop them ASAP Really has nothing to do with American's having more shootings. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 22 2015 23:58 killa_robot wrote: Pretty sure the only actions that have any merit in those situations are either: A) Get out of there ASAP B) Stop them ASAP Really has nothing to do with American's having more shootings. Yea, its and absurd statement. Plus there was an old British guy in the mix as well. If only Americans respond this way then Euros are ridiculously lucky to not have had thousands of such incidents, because what we have learned is that terrorists and mass shooters consistently target disarmed and docile groups of people. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
| ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
On August 22 2015 04:51 Acrofales wrote: Have faith in the democratic process, you oppressive technocrat!  But in all seriousness, now that Alcathous has been banned, someone has to stand up and say that the current Greek election is still a farce. It's basically a choice between "kowtow to Europe" and ruination, because I seriously doubt that any of the political parties who might run on a campaign of renegotiating the deal, or a straight up Grexit, have the know-how to navigate a Grexit without disaster. It's Syriza cast-outs (some would say, the original ideologs who got Syriza elected in the first place) groups or Golden Dawn. The only guy who could credibly lead a Grexit is Varoufakis and he has been ridiculed and slandered in such a way that he is probably unelectable (even if he were to run, which I doubt). Why are you so sure that the party made up of ex-SYRIZA Left Platform people (plus quite possibly more to come who are currently still in SYRIZA), called Laïkí̱ Enóti̱ta (Popular Unity), would not be capable of managing a Grexit? It's been their intention from the start but they went along with Tsipras for a good while. Do you know anything in particular about them to discredit them? | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2715 Posts
On August 22 2015 23:58 killa_robot wrote: Pretty sure the only actions that have any merit in those situations are either: A) Get out of there ASAP B) Stop them ASAP Really has nothing to do with American's having more shootings. No but it does have something to do with american mentality. As said above many americans have thougth about the scenario because of 9/11 and will make the decision faster to engage. It probably helped immensly that they were ex servicemen as well. What you need is for one person to take initiative and the rest to pile in. Basic psychology tells us that if you have thougth about the situation before you will make the decision much faster. If you wait a few seconds because you need to reach a logical conclusion people are already dead and the rest are routing. A lone gunman is fucked the moment someone starts to grapple with him because after that the rest have time to pile in. But if you dont react quickly enough you might not get the chance. | ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On August 22 2015 18:02 Rassy wrote: The reality is that while the Greece parlement did accept the agreement, there is not enough support to actually start implementing it,and therefor new elections are needed. At least that is what it looks like. Endless negotiations and delay,referendum,election. Its all such a waste of time. It takes ages to chance things and get things done and that is one of the roots of all the problems. You've pretty much identified it with your first sentence. Tsipras doesn't have a democratic mandate to implement this deal considering he originally campaigned on a platform of ending austerity, compounding it with a successful referendum to reject austerity (the result apparently surprised him), and ended up agreeing to some of the most severe austerity in economic history. This has now split his Syriza party in two and it would be hard to see how elections can be avoided after all the recent turmoil. Democracy might be slow but I don't think it's a waste of time. If Tsipras tried to implement this harsh deal without the consent of the Greek people, it would just lead to more problems in the future. In any case, I understand the polling suggests that Tsipras's actions are strongly supported by the Greek people and it is considered very unlikely for an anti-bailout party to form government. But of course this is Greece so you can never be sure, can you? I did enjoy the Guardian op-ed on this election: He was a creature of the crisis and he seemed, in some paradoxical way, to be the master of it. When he said no to austerity, he embodied the Greek urge to defy Europe, and when he said yes to austerity, he represented the Greek desire to stay in Europe. Mr Tsipras says he wants to see the financial stability that he argues he and Syriza have secured matched by political stability. But the fact is that what he really offers is not stability but agility, and there is a limit to what agility can achieve. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
The personal right to asylum might be nice and comforting in theory but in reality it is unfair. To apply for asylum you have to reach the country in question, which means only the strongest, most cunning or richest people among the refugees will ever be able to apply. 70% of the asylum seekers in Germany are men, mostly young men. And not the economic "refugees" from Albania are mostly men, but the ones reaching us out of war-torn countries like Afghanistan are mostly young men. If these people deserve asylum, what about the women and children left back in those countries? While we should take in refugees in Germany, we should still turn back those that arrive at our borders. This might end the unregulated migration that is costing lives every day. Instead we should fly-in families from war-torn countries who are most in need and meet our obligations that way. The reality is that there are more people in the world that would deserve asylum than we could ever accommodate. Let's be rational and help those really in need and those with good prospects in our countries (like for example children who can easily pick up the language) rather than help those who somehow managed to arrive here. | ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On August 26 2015 14:25 Maenander wrote: The refugee crisis in Europe is not going to stop anytime soon, and the fundamental problem is the European system of handling asylum seekers. It's not just a European system, it's governed by UN agreement with 147 signatories. The personal right to asylum might be nice and comforting in theory but in reality it is unfair. To apply for asylum you have to reach the country in question, which means only the strongest, most cunning or richest people among the refugees will ever be able to apply. 70% of the asylum seekers in Germany are men, mostly young men. And not the economic "refugees" from Albania are mostly men, but the ones reaching us out of war-torn countries like Afghanistan are mostly young men. If these people deserve asylum, what about the women and children left back in those countries? While we should take in refugees in Germany, we should still turn back those that arrive at our borders. This might end the unregulated migration that is costing lives every day. Instead we should fly-in families from war-torn countries who are most in need and meet our obligations that way. The reality is that there are more people in the world that would deserve asylum than we could ever accommodate. Let's be rational and help those really in need and those with good prospects in our countries (like for example children who can easily pick up the language) rather than help those who somehow managed to arrive here. I agree the system is unfair, but would a European country really be willing to forcibly return a refugee if they knew it meant almost-certain death for them? This is where the principle of non-refoulement stems from. Perhaps if EU countries would adopt your solution, how would it be implemented? You would arrange flights from war-torn countries...that can be dangerous if impossible in some situations. You'd need to set up processing centres in war-torn countries...again endangering the lives of EU staff working in an unstable situation. And EU bureaucracy is legendary. It might take them months or years to process these applications according to a bureaucratic process...by the time they are done, the applicants might be dead, which would certainly put an ugly face on an EU trying to help. And how would the EU select who to take? One family really is as deserving as another. A selection process becomes inherently arbitrary and random, again sowing the seeds of resentment. Maybe, faced with all these hurdles, EU countries would give up and go back to the old system  Or maybe just give up taking any refugees altogether...they can't export a whole population as you say, maybe they could take 0.5% a year or something, which is almost nothing anyway, so why bother going to all the trouble and hassle of such a system.I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying, but I see a lot of potential problems when trying to implement such a system in the real world. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
SkelA
Macedonia13069 Posts
Just an example from my close relatives (couple with 2 small kids) that were granted an Asylum in 1994 but I have no idea why they got it.Never really asked the details but they went just to abuse the system. They were not from a war thorned place or polictical persecution but they still got it with their only goal to abuse the system. They stayed for 2.5 years and came back home with 15k marks(?) pure cash without working a single day and made a huge 3 story house from that money. | ||
| ||
