|
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 14 2016 00:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 23:15 Velr wrote:
They haven't done anything yet and from the article they don't seem to want to. They talk every month about pounishing an european country for their deficit - last month Juncker menaced France. But what about Germany's surplus ? They never said anything about that, at no point in time, like it's normal, not problematic.
"They never said anything" is wrong. Just a quote from 2015:
http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article137079168/EU-nimmt-deutschen-Exportueberschuss-ins-Visier.html
Nach Berechnungen des Münchner Ifo-Instituts weist die sogenannte Leistungsbilanz in Deutschland für 2014 einen Überschuss von knapp 220 Milliarden Euro und damit den weltweit höchsten Wert auf.
Die EU-Kommission stuft Werte von dauerhaft mehr als sechs Prozent im Verhältnis zum Bruttoinlandsprodukt als stabilitätsgefährdend ein. Da Deutschland seit Jahren über dieser Grenze liegt, wurde die Bundesregierung im März 2014 von Brüssel gerügt.
According to calculations of the Ifo-Institute in Munich Germany's trade balance had a surplus of 220 Billion Euro in the year 2014 which was the highest value worldwide [in that year].
The EU commission says values of more than 6% of GDP endanger stability in the Eurozone. For years Germany is above the treshold. Because of that Brussels has reprimanded Germany in March 2014. [GDP 2014 was 2915 Billion Euro. So trade surplus was 7.5%]
So yes this is recognised as a problem. We had this year for example the highest increase in pensions since many years. An increase of 4.25% in W-Germany and 5.95% in E-Germany.
|
On July 14 2016 01:07 Godwrath wrote:We failed the target because the PP lowered the taxes prior to elections to gain votes (we exactly failed for that amount). And now we will have to eat more shit for voting the party the EU wants in power. Juncker himself was trying hard to get this under the rug by delaying it enough for holidays to start and give Spain time to fix it, but some Czech politicians pushed this forward. Or we were told, because i can't find anything on the international media about it. I know this comes a few days later but... Show nested quote +Europe urgently needs a 150 billion-euro ($166 billion) bailout fund to recapitalize its beleaguered banks, particularly those in Italy, Deutsche Bank AG’s chief economist said in an interview with Welt am Sonntag.
"Europe is extremely sick and must start dealing with its problems extremely quickly, or else there may be an accident," Deutsche Bank’s David Folkerts-Landau said, according to the newspaper. "I’m no doomsday prophet, I am a realist."
With Italian banks weighed down by 360 billion euros of soured loans, the government has been sounding out regulators on ways to shore up lenders amid a renewed selloff after Britain voted to leave the European Union. Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, a former member of the European Central Bank’s executive board who now chairs Societe Generale SA, said Wednesday that Italy’s banking crisis could spread to the rest of Europe and rules limiting state aid to lenders should be reconsidered to prevent greater upheaval. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-10/eu-banks-need-166-billion-deutsche-bank-economist-tells-weltHmm ,more money for the banks then ?
Italian banks only probably. They never recapitalised in the crisis though which is why their banks are still full of NPLs
|
Okey thx. Had to look up what NPLs are, damn acronyms :d
Spanish banks such as Banco Popular Espanol SA surged after an aide to the European Union’s top court said they may avoid having to refund billions of euros to customers who paid too much interest on home loans before a 2013 ruling on so-called mortgage floors.
Spain is entitled to apply the time limit due to the “macroeconomic issues associated with the scale” of the unfair mortgage terms, Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi of the EU Court of Justice said in a non-binding opinion Wednesday. The Luxembourg-based EU tribunal follows such advice in a majority of cases.
A Madrid court in April already ordered about 40 lenders, including CaixaBank SA, to refund borrowers for the extra interest they paid on mortgages since May 2013, when Spain’s Supreme Court ruled against the so-called floors that prevented borrowing costs from falling in line with benchmark rates.
If the EU court agrees with Mengozzi, lenders would avoid having to give retroactive refunds to customers for interest payments prior to the Spanish ruling.
"Full retroactivity is the worst negative scenario for banks, although it is not disastrous and can be manageable,” Fabio Mostacci, an analyst at Mirabaud Securities, said by phone before the EU court opinion. “Most banks have already made enough provisions to cover for damages up to 2013 and some banks have an agreement with clients that they will not seek further compensation.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-13/spanish-banks-may-win-eu-case-on-mortgage-interest-repayments-iqkmlyj8
I have read people complaining that the decission is politic/economical and not based on the law. Thoughts ?
|
Zurich15352 Posts
German stats office puplished migration data for 2015 today:
2.137 mio immigrants
998k emigrants
Immigration surplus 1.139 mio
Immigrants:
5.6% German
45% EU nationals
13% other European
30% Asia
5% Africa
Immigration surplus, Asia:
Syria: 298k
Afganistan: 80k
Iraq: 60k
Pakistan: 20k
Immigration surplus, Europe:
Albania: 47k
Romania: 92k
Croatia: 40k
Bulgaria: 40k
All of those numbers are record highs. The office points out likely inaccuracy with counting refugees, due to delayed processing and/or double counting.
|
On July 14 2016 20:42 zatic wrote:
German stats office puplished migration data for 2015 today:
2.137 mio immigrants
998k emigrants
Net immigration 1.139 mio
Immigrants:
5.6% German
45% EU nationals
13% other European
30% Asia
5% Africa
Net immigration, Asia:
Syria: 298k
Afganistan: 80k
Iraq: 60k
Pakistan: 20k
Net immigration, Europe:
Albania: 47k
Romania: 92k
Croatia: 40k
Bulgaria: 40k
All of those numbers are record highs. The office points out likely inaccuracy with counting refugees, due to delayed processing and/or double counting.
Do we have any kind of knowledge on the emmigrants ? From where to where ? Which age on average ? With or without a degree ?
Those are legally registered migrants, or approximations ?
|
he is either cherry picking numbers or not getting stats.
Net immigration = is the difference of immigrants and emigrants of an area in a period of time, divided (usually) per 1,000 inhabitants (considered on midterm population). A positive value represents more people entering the country than leaving it, while a negative value means more people leaving than entering it.
what he has there is this: The migration surplus of Asia rose especially for persons who are nationals of Syria (66 000 to 298 000), Afghanistan (11 000 80 000), Iraq (4 000 60 000) and Pakistan (7 000 20 000) , From Europe there was an increase, especially for persons who are nationals from Albania (12 000 to 47 000) and in the EU from Romania (from 80 000 to 92 000), Croatia (25 000 40 000) and Bulgaria (from 35 000 40 000). At the same time was the migration surplus for persons who are nationals of Serbia 15 000 to 7 000 back. the total amount of them living in Germany (since god knows when).
Edit: he could've said - immigration increase in Germany in 2015: - 232.000 syrians , 69.000 afghanis, 56.000 iraqis, 13.000 pakistanis, ... 12k romanians and so on.
|
Zurich15352 Posts
I have copied verbatim what the stats office published. Here is the original press release (in German) https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2016/07/PD16_246_12421pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
On July 14 2016 21:41 xM(Z wrote:he is either cherry picking numbers or not getting stats. Net immigration = is the difference of immigrants and emigrants of an area in a period of time, divided (usually) per 1,000 inhabitants (considered on midterm population). A positive value represents more people entering the country than leaving it, while a negative value means more people leaving than entering it.what he has there is this: Show nested quote +The migration surplus of Asia rose especially for persons who are nationals of Syria (66 000 to 298 000), Afghanistan (11 000 80 000), Iraq (4 000 60 000) and Pakistan (7 000 20 000) , From Europe there was an increase, especially for persons who are nationals from Albania (12 000 to 47 000) and in the EU from Romania (from 80 000 to 92 000), Croatia (25 000 40 000) and Bulgaria (from 35 000 40 000). At the same time was the migration surplus for persons who are nationals of Serbia 15 000 to 7 000 back. the total amount of them living in Germany (since god knows when). Edit: he could've said - immigration increase in Germany in 2015: - 232.000 syrians , 69.000 afghanis, 56.000 iraqis, 13.000 pakistanis, ... 12k romanians and so on.
I think you are not getting what is said there. On the example of Syrians:
In 2015, 298,000 more people immigrated from Syria than emigrated to Syria. Compared to 2014, this is an increase if immigration surplus of 232,000.
I have no idea what you mean by "the total amount of them living in Germany (since god knows when)."
|
|
|
Zurich15352 Posts
Again, no idea what you are talking about. I literally copied the figures over from that site, and added exactly zero figures by myself.
Ooooh, now I get it. It's about translating "Wanderungsüberschuss"? Well, I took it upon myself to translate the press release. Will replace "Net Immigration" with "Immigration surplus". Would that make you happy?
|
nope, you assumed every number in there refers to net migration rate but what you listed there is the migration surplus(actually not even that but screw semantics now); it literally says so in the "verbatim" quote.
anyway, not going to debate it further; a reason for why there are many romanians there is because we had a fairly decent sized german minority here that migrated to Germany after communism fell.
Edit: to yours -  it's not about being happy but about meaning. people see numbers, assume a meaning then, by the time you correctly explain them, start killing them migrants or something.
one can play with people perception via numbers, correct numbers.
|
Communism in romania fell in 2015? Somehow i think you don'read these numbers right.
|
the pdf i linked earlier has immigration per year from 1950 to 2015 and nowhere i said i'm referring to 2015 alone(they were almost all gone by 2015, the romanian germanic minority).
being a wise ass doesn't suit you dude; you can drop it and no one would notice it.
|
Zurich15352 Posts
On July 14 2016 21:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 20:42 zatic wrote:
German stats office puplished migration data for 2015 today:
2.137 mio immigrants
998k emigrants
Net immigration 1.139 mio
Immigrants:
5.6% German
45% EU nationals
13% other European
30% Asia
5% Africa
Net immigration, Asia:
Syria: 298k
Afganistan: 80k
Iraq: 60k
Pakistan: 20k
Net immigration, Europe:
Albania: 47k
Romania: 92k
Croatia: 40k
Bulgaria: 40k
All of those numbers are record highs. The office points out likely inaccuracy with counting refugees, due to delayed processing and/or double counting. Do we have any kind of knowledge on the emmigrants ? From where to where ? Which age on average ? With or without a degree ? Those are legally registered migrants, or approximations ?
Very little. The data only goes down to nationality and gender. Example:
Out of the 998k emigrants 2015, Germans accounted for 138k, 74k male, 64k female.
Those are all drawn from registration, so no approximations.
|
Maybe it's older Germans who go on a longer vacation to Spain?
|
Zurich15352 Posts
On July 14 2016 22:32 xM(Z wrote:
the pdf i linked earlier has immigration per year from 1950 to 2015 and nowhere i said i'm referring to 2015 alone(they were almost all gone by 2015, the romanian germanic minority).
being a wise ass doesn't suit you dude; you can drop it and no one would notice it.
Everything we are talking about, including the site you linked, is about 2015 alone. Here, from the link you posted (PDF, page 20):
In 2015, 221,405 people migrated from Romania to Germany, 129,059 migrated from Germany to Romania, leaving us with a migration surplus of 92,346 for 2015.
|
On July 14 2016 22:32 xM(Z wrote:
the pdf i linked earlier has immigration per year from 1950 to 2015 and nowhere i said i'm referring to 2015 alone(they were almost all gone by 2015, the romanian germanic minority).
being a wise ass doesn't suit you dude; you can drop it and no one would notice it.
We are looking at the 2015 stats Zatic posted, at least everyone except you seems to be. Even you, yourself linked to 2015 data a few posts ago.
Not constantly being wrong, spouting populist bullshit or/and doom and gloom "news" would really help you bringing your points a cross.
|
lol, the pdf has all the stats, the 2015 ones included.
it also has migration from Germany based on country of destination and based on nationality(if WhiteDog is interested; from 1996 to 2015 included).
@zatic: and in 2014 it was 198 705 going in and 118 346 going out; 80.359 surplus.
the difference between 2014 and 2015 is SURPRISE! ~12k
|
Zurich15352 Posts
I still don't think you understand what you are talking about. So from 2014 to 2015 the yearly migration surplus between Romania and Germany increased by 12k. We can read that ourselves. What are you trying to tell us?
You are still wrong with virtually everything your wrote over the last page, yet you have the chuzpah of accusing others of "cherry picking" "not getting it" "being a wise ass" "adding numbers yourself".
|
We can read that ourselves. no, we can't read that because what we read was that the net immigration rate for 2015 for romanians was 92 000; i don't even ...
there is not an instance in which i was wrong, yet i rightfully corrected you.
you could imply i was wrong about some things if you put words into my mouth thou.
|
Zurich15352 Posts
On July 14 2016 23:41 xM(Z wrote:no, we can't read that because what we read was that the net immigration rate for 2015 for romanians was 92 000; i don't even ... there is not an instance in which i was wrong, yet i rightfully corrected you. you could imply i was wrong about some things if you put words into my mouth thou.
Again, you are wrong. As you can see with a quick ctrl+f, not a single time was "net immigration rate" used by anyone but yourself.
Net migration (*) of people from Romania to Germany in 2015 was about 92,000. The change of net migration (*) of people from Romania to Germany between 2014 and 2015 was about 12k.
This means 31.12.2015 there were 92,000 more people in Germany who had come from Romania than on 01.01.2015. I don't think I can put it any more clearly.
And I still don't understand what you are trying to tell us. I am getting a vibe of the Romanian meme of old here.
(*) Net migration not to be confused with net migration rate. Here, net migration is to be understood as total number of immigrants minus total number of emigrants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
