EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 253
| 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. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 31 2015 01:33 Faust852 wrote: I think populism has evolve to be a synonym of short-termism, going in the interest of the people for the short term, just to be reelected, leading to bad decision in the long term. If your definition was right, we would use populist to actually describe the people in power, which people do not. They use populism to all non mainstream party / persona that gain recognition. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On August 31 2015 01:30 WhiteDog wrote: So Varoufakis defend the interest of the white nationalist working class ? Explain me how. You're conflating two topic, syriza had in its program a plan to give the greek citizenship to refugees (which they actually did in part when they got in power). Don't conflate populism and nationalism. Merkel and Shauble are more nationalist than Varoufakis. I wouldn't actually put Varoufakis into that group because he had a pretty positive stance on immigration and was pretty sympathetic towards EU federalization, but "close the border" and other protectionist policies that will hurt immigrants are very popular among the left as well as the right. Bernie Sanders had to dance around the issue too in one of his interviews because you can't really reconcile 'labour shortening' policies through migration barriers with having an otherwise internationalist position. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 31 2015 01:41 Nyxisto wrote: I wouldn't actually put Varoufakis into that group because he had a pretty positive stance on immigration and was pretty sympathetic towards EU federalization, but "close the border" and other protectionist policies that will hurt immigrants are very popular among the left as well as the right. Bernie Sanders had to dance around the issue too in one of his interviews because you can't really reconcile 'labour shortening' policies through migration barriers with having an otherwise internationalist position. You are twisting the discussion then because we were talking about Varoufakis described as a populist. As to the second part of your post, it's just a simplification as always with that kind of topic. There are plenty of marxist or leftist theorist - I'm dropping Samir Amin's name just as an exemple - that advocated for isolationist development as far as 1960. To them, the free trade (and the fact that the most educated people of the poorest countries usually leave those countries) is part of the reason as to why some countries are unable to develop themselves freely. Socialism is not about the end of all frontier - to permit men and goods alike (but men are goods too in the capitalist economy) to freely go from one country to another, like people are not tie in any way with the country they are born in. Internationalism is not cosmopolitism - a distinction many people seems to forget. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On August 31 2015 01:38 WhiteDog wrote: If your definition was right, we would use populist to actually describe the people in power, which people do not. They use populism to all non mainstream party / persona that gain recognition. Well, idk, I read several times how a lot of current leaders are populists. The one I heard the most describe by this word being Merkel. I read the same for Tsipras, or Cameron. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 31 2015 00:35 WhiteDog wrote: I dislike your use of the word populist. Populist was actually a positive adjective in the XIXth century, now it is always tainted and branded as a bad thing. What's wrong about a policy that respect the will of the people ? What's wrong about a policy that defend the interests of the weakest ? And I was joking about the wrong, as you said, politics is about conflicting interest : there is no right or wrong, the political game being closer to a "war of gods" to quote Weber. Populism is almost never actually about the will of the people though. Its about circumventing that will because it inevitably leads to results on a macro level that people perceive as unfair. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 31 2015 03:57 cLutZ wrote: Populism is almost never actually about the will of the people though. Its about circumventing that will because it inevitably leads to results on a macro level that people perceive as unfair. That's how the word was twisted during the XXth century - it's pejorative use today, and the fact that most of you acknowledge this pejorative use as the real definition of populism is a good clue to understand how the media and the current political spectrum delegitimzed any political stance that desire to defend the general population. To me, Varoufakis and many leftist movement today are pejoratively labelled as "populists" just because they contredict the mainstream discurse and present the current situation as unsustainable - something the dominants don't want since they gain from this situation. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 31 2015 04:16 cLutZ wrote: Populism is defined pejoratively because almost all the movements are reactionary and support policies that are short sighted. Like, I remember a populist movement from around the turn of the 19th century in America who's basic purpose was to inflate away the debts of farmers. How is that short sighted ? France inflated away it's debt (at above 120 % of its GDP) after the 2nd WW. It just goes in the interest of the people against the interest of the few that possess capital. | ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On August 30 2015 19:54 LegalLord wrote: That could very well be it, since it seems like the other parties involved just don't want to talk to him because he doesn't do a good job of being diplomatic. Nevertheless, it's clear now that Greece has done a rather poor job of managing the crisis and secured itself a deal that was under worse terms than the one they were originally offered. Varoufakis seems to have said a lot of "if people listened to me, things would have been better" since he was removed from office. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but that does come off as a wee bit disgruntled in my eyes. Admittedly his ideas are not too bad, but since he was an important player in handling the Greek crisis, he goes down with the sinking ship that is Greek credibility in this entire affair. And I have a hard time believing that he is free of blame for how things turned out. Although Varoufakis's negotiating style appears to leave something to be desired, I am not sure it would have changed the outcome much. Syriza and Varoufakis's primary goal was to sign a deal to ease austerity (I would note that they started from a reasonable negotiating position of maintaining austerity, just less of it, and gave more and more and more while Germany et al moved the goalposts further and further away) and permit the Greek economy to recover. Merkel and her many EU allies are adamantly opposed to such a thing and I doubt if Gandhi and the Pope would have changed their minds. And as long as the destructive austerity policy remains in play, I am not sure all the other conditions Greece has capitulated to even matter all that much. The policy cannot last and all it has done has been to expose the heart of darkness at the centre of EU policymaking and broken the previous consensus view that what Germany was doing was reasonable. Merkel may look like she's won a huge victory at the negotiating table but in the long run it may turn out to have been a defeat of her own making. On August 31 2015 00:07 RvB wrote: I wonder if they simply had no economic discussion or if they had some and disagreed while Varoufakis kept saying he was right. I haven't seen anyone but Varoufakis make the claim that nobody except him wanted the discussion. Perhaps Varoufakis is lying but I'd doubt it. I've never seen it disputed either and it corresponds with what we've heard. It seems pretty clear that Germany et al had already made up their minds about the economic policy and weren't interested in having a debate. They were there to negotiate numbers and they had no interest in listening to an academic try to teach them about Keynesian economics... but they weren't even really interested in having a negotiation. For them, as the creditors, they saw (correctly) they held all the cards and they expected Greece to play by the rules...their rules. Just like with the last two Greek governments, in exchange for money the EU expected the Greeks to roll over. When Tsipras and Varoufakis refused to obey, they were labelled as reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, amateurs, and worse. Of course, in the end, the Greeks were forced to obey. To a policy, I would mention, that a group of leading economists compared to asking the Greeks to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. I can see the German side of things. If everything they said about economics and the Greeks was true, their actions are harsh but more or less logical and defensible. The problem, of course, is they are wrong about the economics, and they've built a house on a foundation of shit. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On August 31 2015 00:35 WhiteDog wrote: I dislike your use of the word populist. Populist was actually a positive adjective in the XIXth century, now it is always tainted and branded as a bad thing. What's wrong about a policy that respect the will of the people ? What's wrong about a policy that defend the interests of the weakest ? And I was joking about the wrong, as you said, politics is about conflicting interest : there is no right or wrong, the political game being closer to a "war of gods" to quote Weber. My definition of "populist" would be a political upstart party lead by a charismatic leader who promises a large group of people unhappy with the current way the country is run things that cannot possibly be achieved. Their policies tend to go along the lines of "take from those who have, and give to those who have not", where the object of the having can be anything, ranging from money to political power. Policies tend to only address short-term issues without much regard of the potential long-term catastrophes they may or may not entail. Populism, by its very nature, requires an us-vs-them rethoric. I don't think I'm that far off the mark with this. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 31 2015 04:36 WhiteDog wrote: How is that short sighted ? France inflated away it's debt (at above 120 % of its GDP) after the 2nd WW. It just goes in the interest of the people against the interest of the few that possess capital. Dramatically changing things like inflation essentially randomly (based on political whims, which is unpredictable on relevant timelines) is fine if you want your credit markets to stagnate and constrict. I also just, as a general statement think people should stop pretending the post-WWII growth was related to any policies in place at those times. By doing so you are essentially arguing in favor of 20 years of economic depression including the occupying and bombing of a significant portion of the advanced world in order for your policy to be effective. Under those circumstances, plus the population explosions that happened at that time, you essentially need to be economically incompetent (Eastern Bloc) to not grow rapidly. | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On August 31 2015 15:46 cLutZ wrote: Dramatically changing things like inflation essentially randomly (based on political whims, which is unpredictable on relevant timelines) is fine if you want your credit markets to stagnate and constrict. I also just, as a general statement think people should stop pretending the post-WWII growth was related to any policies in place at those times. By doing so you are essentially arguing in favor of 20 years of economic depression including the occupying and bombing of a significant portion of the advanced world in order for your policy to be effective. Under those circumstances, plus the population explosions that happened at that time, you essentially need to be economically incompetent (Eastern Bloc) to not grow rapidly. The post-WW2 era also brought in the most rapid advances in technology, household productivity increases and medical understanding in human history. Growth on those levels aren't happening again. That is likely to never, over a wide swath of humanity, happen again. Though there is still fairly huge room for growth in the future, but the technologies needed are a bit different. (Mass-scale Desalinization is the single biggest game-changing technology we haven't conquered yet; scalable Fusion power generation is next.) There isn't going to be any new technology like Penicillin coming along that will eliminate huge amounts of death & human suffering. Especially when most in the modern economies don't die from communicable diseases anymore. | ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
if they understand the human body fully, i think even double the life span should be possible. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On August 31 2015 17:02 Taf the Ghost wrote: Though there is still fairly huge room for growth in the future, but the technologies needed are a bit different. (Mass-scale Desalinization is the single biggest game-changing technology we haven't conquered yet; scalable Fusion power generation is next.) There isn't going to be any new technology like Penicillin coming along that will eliminate huge amounts of death & human suffering. Especially when most in the modern economies don't die from communicable diseases anymore. What? How is desalination going to be a "single biggest game changer" for Europe? And are you talking about actual technological breakthroughs in desalination, or simply about cheap (and clean) energy? Because, well, yeah, cheap energy is always great although we wouldn't really use it for desalination a lot. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On August 31 2015 15:46 cLutZ wrote: Dramatically changing things like inflation essentially randomly (based on political whims, which is unpredictable on relevant timelines) is fine if you want your credit markets to stagnate and constrict. I also just, as a general statement think people should stop pretending the post-WWII growth was related to any policies in place at those times. By doing so you are essentially arguing in favor of 20 years of economic depression including the occupying and bombing of a significant portion of the advanced world in order for your policy to be effective. Under those circumstances, plus the population explosions that happened at that time, you essentially need to be economically incompetent (Eastern Bloc) to not grow rapidly. Your comment is based on a vision of inflation that I don't quite understand. And I never talked about growth, I specifically talked about inflation. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Now, political elections and actions are inherently unpredictable, as a bank or a corporation really never has a a good idea which party will end up the ruling party, and what their policies will be in 5 years, 10 year, or 30 years, which are typical loan durations. And the threat of unexpected deflation or inflation, more often politically it will be inflation, artificially tightens the market for consumer credit and raises rate charged to consumers, and businesses, which is bad. Notice, for example, how nearly every country that joined the EU (thus losing their ability to inflate randomly) saw a dramatic drop in their cost of borrowing? The same is true with everyday credit. In your example, the French inflated away a debt, one that I don't know enough about historically, but given the growth France had at that time, the inflation was superfluous anyways as 120% of GDP in 1950 would have been an easily manageable amount by 1960. I also don't know the interest rates people started charging before this and in response to loan to the French treasury, I do know in America rates were generally quite high during the postwar period up to the 80s. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On August 31 2015 18:37 phil.ipp wrote: i think there will be great steps regarding health/body. if they understand the human body fully, i think even double the life span should be possible. Ironically, people will still want to retire around age 65 (preferably early), which means that people will spend an even smaller amount of their lives actually being productive. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On September 01 2015 03:24 cLutZ wrote: Inflation is fine if its always the same. If its 0%, 1%, 20%, or 100% (probably only feasibly with an e-currency) per year, people will adapt, and things generally will work out, in the long term. Banks will just adjust the rates on loans, and bank accounts and people who don't really trust banks will not sit on cash if its a predictably high rate, they will sit on precious metals. This is a well understood concept since at least Mises, and certainly since Keynes and Hayek. This is why all central banks have an inflation target and it is not 1% in 2010 and 5% in 2011 and 10% 2012 then back to 1% in 2013. The target usually runs in a narrow band of 1-3%. Now, political elections and actions are inherently unpredictable, as a bank or a corporation really never has a a good idea which party will end up the ruling party, and what their policies will be in 5 years, 10 year, or 30 years, which are typical loan durations. And the threat of unexpected deflation or inflation, more often politically it will be inflation, artificially tightens the market for consumer credit and raises rate charged to consumers, and businesses, which is bad. Notice, for example, how nearly every country that joined the EU (thus losing their ability to inflate randomly) saw a dramatic drop in their cost of borrowing? The same is true with everyday credit. In your example, the French inflated away a debt, one that I don't know enough about historically, but given the growth France had at that time, the inflation was superfluous anyways as 120% of GDP in 1950 would have been an easily manageable amount by 1960. I also don't know the interest rates people started charging before this and in response to loan to the French treasury, I do know in America rates were generally quite high during the postwar period up to the 80s. You are completly wrong about inflation and why we have inflation target, and this has nothing to do with Keynes - I'm actually taking Keynes and keynesian arguments in regards to inflation. It's Friedman (and Phelps) who is (are) responsable of our modern monetary policy, not keynes or mises and certainly not Hayek - for Hayek what you call inflation (the general and regular increase of all prices at a certain %) does not exist, because to him inflation result in a change in relative price (Hayek, while a liberal, is widely more complicated that what you suggest here). This completly change the talk about inflation (and this is why Hayek is fundamentally against any inflation at any level). The inflation target is closer to 2 or 4% for reasons that I exposed in previous posts. Now everything you are saying is closer to Friedman's monetary illusio, but you are actually twisting his view to make it go with your narrative on inflation (in Friedman's mind, the monetary illusio is a concession to the keynesian vision on monetary policy). In any way, this does not change the fact that capital is depreciated and that inflation force people to invest if real interest rate decrease - this is just math. Saying that France paid back its debts thanks to growth alone is just ignorance on your part - we inflated our debt away it is well known and accepted. The inflation, in this regard, also permitted the growth, by reducing (in real terms) the amount of money we needed to pay off years after years. Inflation is the reason why France paid all its debts in the XXth century - and never default. | ||
|
Evil_Sheep
Canada902 Posts
On August 29 2015 06:23 Evil_Sheep wrote: One omission from this article is they have quotes from officials up and down the IMF...with the notable exception of Olivier Blanchard, the IMF Chief Economist during the whole crisis. As I understand it the chief policy adviser for the IMF, with decades of experience as an economist rather than a career politician like Lagarde or DSK, it was his job to ensure the numbers could actually add up, and in theory Blanchard is someone who should have "known better." I wonder if we will ever get to find out what he really thought about all this. Well for those few who are interested, the answer to my question has come rather quickly, in a new exit interview with Olivier Blanchard published by the IMF today: People who expect me to bare my soul after I leave the Fund will be disappointed. What you got is what you’ll get. Oh, well then. The issue I have been struck by is how to indicate a change of views without triggering headlines of “mistakes,’’ “Fund incompetence,’’ and so on. Here, I am thinking of fiscal multipliers. The underestimation of the drag on output from fiscal consolidation was not a ``mistake’’ in the way people think of mistakes, e.g., mixing up two cells in an excel sheet. It was based on a substantial amount of prior evidence, but evidence which turned out to be misleading in an environment where interest rates are close to zero and monetary policy cannot offset the negative effects of budget cuts. We got a lot of flak for admitting the underestimation, and I suspect we shall continue to get more flak in the future. But, at the same time, I believe that we, the Fund, substantially increased our credibility, and used better assumptions later on. It was painful, but it was useful. I think Blanchard lets himself and the Fund off rather too easily here. Obviously the economic issues they had to deal with are complex and there were no black and white answers. But as Paul Krugman points out, the problems with the Greek bailouts and the multiplier were foreseen by economists like him at the time. What's indisputable is the 3 bailouts have been a colossal fuckup, and it's disappointing that even the thoughtful and articulate Blanchard continues to deny the extent of their culpability or responsibility for their role in it. He talks about the IMF and him learning from their mistakes, but the first step in learning from your mistakes is fully admitting and recognizing you've made them, and not by being too proud to admit you fucked up. | ||
| ||
