|
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. |
Couple questions from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_banknotes
Who physically controls the Athens Euro printing press? The Bank of Greece?
What denominations can they print? It looks like they have only printed small denomiations. Do they have the plates to print €500s?
What are the most likely and effective countermeasures to prevent Greece from cranking it up to warp speed?
* Filter out all "N"/Greece code notes ?
* Pressure the ink/paper suppliers ?
* Sabotage?
I'm kind of halfway serious. We print this every day in the US :
Approximately $400 hundred million dollars worth of banknotes are printed each day at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington, D.C. Each day three tons of ink are used to print money.
The method I think used ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_notes) can print 32 note-sheets...8,000 sheets an hour.
So one press knocking out €500's * 8,000 sheets * 32 notes per sheet = €128,000,000 per hour.
If the USD / Euro printing methods are similiar.
--
Edit $ to €.
|
Yeah I believe it's the bank of greece, but with the agreement of the european central bank (they can't print by their own accord).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i was not aware of the existence of $500 bills.
|
Iirc they are supposed to be decomissioned anyway, since only drug dealers use them for the most part.
|
On February 19 2015 03:23 dismiss wrote:
Iirc they are supposed to be decomissioned anyway, since only drug dealers use them for the most part.
I had one once! And I did feel weird holding it, like someone will come over and question my possession of it. Good thing they got rid of those - hell, these days you MUST pay through the bank if you wish to make a purchase of 500eu or more in Greece, although in reality you can just pay cash and get a couple extra receipts of 499eu each ~_~
Frontpage of the Guardian online, relevant to Marxism, adaptation of a 2013 conference lecture from Varoufakis. Safe to assume the discrediting attempts will be reinforced very soon, I'd say. Interesting times.
|
On February 19 2015 00:01 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2015 23:21 nunez wrote:
your copy of das kapital, maartendq...
is it written in a language you can read
or is it all greek to you? I didn't read it. Apparently on the internet all you have to do is give links to internet articles nowadays, or just refute sources because the author holds different opinions than you. I did read other books though, the kind that say that Greece's crisis is caused by both institutional deficiency, a history of being ruled by foreign entities and a society that is highly family-based. But apparently those arguments are moot because they were posited by a guy who at one time in his life believed in the US' neo-conservative project. Anyway, Wikipedia has this to say: Show nested quote +In Marxism, which defines social classes according to their relationship with the means of production, the "middle class" is said to be the class below the ruling class and above the proletariat in the Marxist social schema. Marxist writers have used the term in two distinct but related ways.[10] In the first sense it is used for the bourgeoisie, the urban merchant and professional class that stood between the aristocracy and the proletariat in the Marxist model. However, in modern developed countries, some Marxist writers specify the petite bourgeoisie – either owners of small property who may not employ wage labor or laboring managers – as the "middle class" between the ruling and working classes.[10] Marx himself regarded this version of the "middle class" simultaneously as exploited workers and supervisors of exploitation.[10] From this, I deduce that Marx' idea of middle class is completely different from what modern economists and sociologists define as "middle class." Most teamliquid posters would probably be part of the global middle class, but very few, if any of them would mark themselves as part of the bourgeoisie. A good definition of middle class as people view the term nowadays would be The Economists': Show nested quote + "[The Economist] characterized the middle class as having a reasonable amount of discretionary income, so that they do not live from hand to mouth as the poor do, and defined it as beginning at the point where people have roughly a third of their income left for discretionary spending after paying for basic food and shelter."
This form of middle class actually encompasses a large part of Marx' "proletariat", who, thanks to increasing income better living standards decided not to overthrow their masters and plunge their countries into a dictatorship of the majority where everyone is equal, and some people somehow always end up being more equal than others and decide to exploit the masses for their own gain (except in Russia, it actually did happen over there). And an interesting piece on whether Athens is the birthplace of contemporary democracy: https://thebarbarianreview.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/birthplace-of-democracy/Or, since I trust books more than randomly googled internet articles: On Politics, by Alan Ryan (2012 WW Norton & Co). Tegen Verkiezingen, by David van Reybrouck (2013 Bezige Bij) Summary of the article: Athenian democracy had nothing in common with democracy as we practice it now, and how the ruling classes saw it in the preceding century. In fact, the mere idea of extending the franchise to the whole population revolted even the founding fathers of the United States of America because they deemed the common folk not smart enough for statecraft. Democracy as we know now it is a very novel idea. And another quote: Show nested quote +
As parliaments and representative democracy developed from the 18th century the example of the Athenian demokratia was not in the minds of the ruling classes. After the revolution of 508/7BC the Athenians stripped power from individual positions of authority, gave the administration to the citizen body and attempted to include all citizens in the decision making process. Representative democracy vests the majority of power in the hands of a small group with minimal participation of the rest of society. When a small proportion of the citizen body has the power to direct society the ancient Greeks called this oligarchy. Indeed for many of the founders of modern democracies the oligarchic regime of Sparta was a more likely source of inspiration than Athens.
Interesting effort & thanks for sharing! "Pure" Athens-style democracy works well in small 'tribal' groups but not in larger contexts.
[rest of post redacted due to threats]
|
On February 19 2015 03:23 dismiss wrote:
Iirc they are supposed to be decomissioned anyway, since only drug dealers use them for the most part.
I once was asked about how I want to be paid for something (not drugs) and answered stating that I'd like to be paid in 500€ notes for shitz and giggles.
It was glorious for a couple days but pretty soon I realized that going to McDonalds with a 500€ note isn't what I want to do either so I ended up putting it on the bank and getting back something reasonable 
|
On February 19 2015 03:01 WhiteDog wrote:
That jokes, we will now discuss how impossible it is to define the middle class and make it seem like marx was wrong about it. First and foremost, there are two distinguished vision of class in Marx books : from a theorical standpoint, only three class exist - the worker class vs the capitalist class, and the middle class in between that is bound to disappear into either the capitalist or the worker class (mostly worker). But in his books, there are also various analysis where he shows that the number of "class" heavily depend on the historical context (in The 18 brumary of Louis Napoléon he distinguish 9 to 11 class if I remember correctly).
Note that in the part you quoted, some sentences specifically talk about Marx, while others mentions "marxists" (which does not mean much considering marxism is a huge cosmos - Marx himself famously said about french marxism that if that was marxism, then he was not marxist).
Meanwhile, the "middle class" doesn't mean much : you took a definition from The Economists, but in sociology most people talk about the middle class in plural, as in there are many different group within this "class". Piketty believe the middle class goes from the bottom 10% of income to the 95% - yeah nothing less than 75 % of our societies ! And Louis Maurin and Dominique Goux (in a well known french book about the middle class) distinguish the "new middle class" from the "old ones". All in all, how is it that it is Marx that is wrong, when almost nobody agree on a clear definition of the middle class ? I wonder. And how does it makes his analysis wrong ? And isn't it irrelevant ?
Most people today are in deep desire to make it seem Marx is "wrong" without ever reading it. I really don't understand why : isn't it more balanced to read and then discuss ? It seems pretty obvious that Marx theory is "imperfect", but saying categorically "this is wrong" without much knowledge on him is pretty sad. Especially when you find Fukuyama's theories valuable.
As much as I would love to read Marx' work, I still have a rather extensive backcatalog of books to read through. The problem is that said backatalog grows at a rate of 2-3 to 1 (read one book, discover two or three other interesting ones while reading; even you just mentioned some new ones.. ). I will happily admit that my knowledge about marxism is very superficial, and that my previous post was wrong in many regards. I was incredibly tired yesterday, even though that's a poor excuse. Now I'm reading 'Democracy Disrupted' by Ivan Krastev, and next is 'Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World' by Barrington Moore.
I took the economists' definition because it is an intuitive one: middle class people are people who have some money left after having accounted for food and living costs.
|
On February 19 2015 17:17 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2015 03:01 WhiteDog wrote:
That jokes, we will now discuss how impossible it is to define the middle class and make it seem like marx was wrong about it. First and foremost, there are two distinguished vision of class in Marx books : from a theorical standpoint, only three class exist - the worker class vs the capitalist class, and the middle class in between that is bound to disappear into either the capitalist or the worker class (mostly worker). But in his books, there are also various analysis where he shows that the number of "class" heavily depend on the historical context (in The 18 brumary of Louis Napoléon he distinguish 9 to 11 class if I remember correctly).
Note that in the part you quoted, some sentences specifically talk about Marx, while others mentions "marxists" (which does not mean much considering marxism is a huge cosmos - Marx himself famously said about french marxism that if that was marxism, then he was not marxist).
Meanwhile, the "middle class" doesn't mean much : you took a definition from The Economists, but in sociology most people talk about the middle class in plural, as in there are many different group within this "class". Piketty believe the middle class goes from the bottom 10% of income to the 95% - yeah nothing less than 75 % of our societies ! And Louis Maurin and Dominique Goux (in a well known french book about the middle class) distinguish the "new middle class" from the "old ones". All in all, how is it that it is Marx that is wrong, when almost nobody agree on a clear definition of the middle class ? I wonder. And how does it makes his analysis wrong ? And isn't it irrelevant ?
Most people today are in deep desire to make it seem Marx is "wrong" without ever reading it. I really don't understand why : isn't it more balanced to read and then discuss ? It seems pretty obvious that Marx theory is "imperfect", but saying categorically "this is wrong" without much knowledge on him is pretty sad. Especially when you find Fukuyama's theories valuable. As much as I would love to read Marx' work, I still have a rather extensive backcatalog of books to read through. The problem is that said backatalog grows at a rate of 2-3 to 1 (read one book, discover two or three other interesting ones while reading; even you just mentioned some new ones.. ). I will happily admit that my knowledge about marxism is very superficial, and that my previous post was wrong in many regards. I was incredibly tired yesterday, even though that's a poor excuse. Now I'm reading 'Democracy Disrupted' by Ivan Krastev, and next is 'Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World' by Barrington Moore. I took the economists' definition because it is an intuitive one: middle class people are people who have some money left after having accounted for food and living costs.
Hey I can finally agree with WhiteDog about something. People do generally poorly define the middle class, and usually make it far to broad to be relevant. Or, as most politicians do, define it as whatever they need to it be to appeal to the electorate.
|
Thats because there is no such thing as the middle class? Incomes are basically a smooth distribution with a rightward skew. On top of that they are layered in various areas with different costs of living so being in a national 50% percentile can put you in the bottom 20% or top 20% locally.
|
On February 20 2015 05:37 cLutZ wrote:
Thats because there is no such thing as the middle class? Incomes are basically a smooth distribution with a rightward skew. On top of that they are layered in various areas with different costs of living so being in a national 50% percentile can put you in the bottom 20% or top 20% locally.
There is as much a middle class, as much as there is an upper and lower class. Nothing wrong with the concept of a middle class, or even defining it. Even taking localities into affect. The problem comes when you so broadly define something as to make it meaningless, as most politicians love to do. For instance, whenever I hear US liberals discuss the "middle class" they effectively mean anyone that isn't the top 5-10%. In this case, removing the bottom bound has rendered the word misleading and useless, a term merely meant to stir up class angst against the unmentioned upper class.
|
On February 20 2015 07:52 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 05:37 cLutZ wrote:
Thats because there is no such thing as the middle class? Incomes are basically a smooth distribution with a rightward skew. On top of that they are layered in various areas with different costs of living so being in a national 50% percentile can put you in the bottom 20% or top 20% locally. There is as much a middle class, as much as there is an upper and lower class. Nothing wrong with the concept of a middle class, or even defining it. Even taking localities into affect. The problem comes when you so broadly define something as to make it meaningless, as most politicians love to do. For instance, whenever I hear US liberals discuss the "middle class" they effectively mean anyone that isn't the top 5-10%. In this case, removing the bottom bound has rendered the word misleading and useless, a term merely meant to stir up class angst against the unmentioned upper class.
No. Most US liberals talk about the "shrinking middle class" and it's not because they are moving upwards. If the middle class is getting smaller, worldwide, then that means there is a middle class, and the bounds are squeezing it, the lower bound doing the real work.
|
On February 20 2015 07:59 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 07:52 hannahbelle wrote:On February 20 2015 05:37 cLutZ wrote:
Thats because there is no such thing as the middle class? Incomes are basically a smooth distribution with a rightward skew. On top of that they are layered in various areas with different costs of living so being in a national 50% percentile can put you in the bottom 20% or top 20% locally. There is as much a middle class, as much as there is an upper and lower class. Nothing wrong with the concept of a middle class, or even defining it. Even taking localities into affect. The problem comes when you so broadly define something as to make it meaningless, as most politicians love to do. For instance, whenever I hear US liberals discuss the "middle class" they effectively mean anyone that isn't the top 5-10%. In this case, removing the bottom bound has rendered the word misleading and useless, a term merely meant to stir up class angst against the unmentioned upper class. No. Most US liberals talk about the "shrinking middle class" and it's not because they are moving upwards. If the middle class is getting smaller, worldwide, then that means there is a middle class, and the bounds are squeezing it, the lower bound doing the real work.
Both parties discuss the shrinking middle class. They each have their own reason for the middle class shrinking. But unless you firmly define what "middle class" is, it can shrink or grow based on political expediency, which is exactly what it does on a daily basis.
|
So why are you talking about hearing "US liberals" refer to the middle class? You are incoherent.
|
(Reuters) - European Union paymaster Germany softened its tone on Friday as euro zone finance ministers raced to break a deadlock over Athens' debts.
Hours ahead of the crunch talks in Brussels, a senior Greek official said a deal was close. Germany said Greece's latest proposal was a "good signal" although it did not go far enough in its present form.
The Greek official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Athens had made a lot of concessions to reach an agreement and the euro zone should show some flexibility too.
"We have covered four fifths of the distance, they also need to cover one fifth," the official said, adding Greece wanted to clinch a deal on Friday, but that it would not back down in the face of pressure from the Eurogroup.
A spokeswoman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the latest Greek request for an extension of its loan agreement with Europe was a good signal and provided a basis for further talks, but was not sufficient in its current form.
Spokeswoman Christiane Wirtz however sent a more conciliatory message than Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble had on Thursday, when he rejected the proposal from his Greek counterpart Yanis Varoufakis.
"The letter from the Greek finance minister makes clear that Greece remains interested in support from the European Union," Wirtz said. "This letter is a good signal which allows us to continue to negotiate."
She said the euro zone finance ministers' talks would "hopefully lead to an agreement with Greece."
source
(Bloomberg) -- Germany and its allies are ready to let Greece leave the euro unless Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras accepts the conditions required to extend his country’s financial support, according to Malta’s finance minister, Edward Scicluna.
Greece’s creditors are cranking up the pressure on Tsipras as he seeks a deal to prevent his country defaulting on its obligations as early as next month. By bowing to German demands, the premier risks a domestic backlash from voters and party members whom he’s promised an end to austerity.
“Germany, the Netherlands and others will be hard and they will insist that Greece repays back the solidarity shown by the member states by respecting the conditions,” Scicluna said in an interview. “They’ve now reached a point where they will tell Greece ‘if you really want to leave, leave.’”
Talks between euro-region finance ministers in Brussels Friday aimed at agreeing an extension of Greece’s aid program were pushed back by an hour and a half, the group’s chairman, Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, said on Twitter. The meeting will begin at 4:30 p.m. Brussels time and Dijsselbloem will make a statement at 3 p.m.
In a formal request on Thursday to extend Greece’s euro-area backed rescue beyond its end-of-February expiry for another six months, Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis said he would accept the financial and procedural conditions of the existing deal while asking for negotiations on other elements.
source
|
The document that submited to the EWG by the german finmin concerning the greek letter for extension of the loan agreement, quite a creation that shines solidarity, realization of the complete humanitarian disaster happened because of the 5years of deformations based on the bailout agreements and the political change that completed democratically 3 weeks ago.
"German comments on the Greek application"
Meanwhile,
Poverty in Germany is at it's highest since German reunification in 1990, according to a new study. Some 12.5 million Germans are now classified as poor.
Source
|
Well, that hangs highly on the definition of "poor". According to that article, i am also poor. But i do not feel poor. I will probably stop being poor once i graduate university, but i am still living comfortably at the moment in my opinion.
Poor according to that source means less than 892€ a month income (after taxes etc...) for a person living alone, less than 1873€/month for a family of two adults with two kids.
|
How much is rent in Germany? 892eu in Greece is fine, when you can rent an apartment for less than 250eu. In Madrid/Barcelona you'd have to live with a bunch of other people for sure, that I know.
|
In a shared apartment as a college student, about 250-400 in cities like Cologne or Berlin, in Munich or Hamburg it can be 500-600. In most cities 800-900€ is completely fine for young people.
|
On February 21 2015 01:27 Taguchi wrote:
How much is rent in Germany? 892eu in Greece is fine, when you can rent an apartment for less than 250eu. In Madrid/Barcelona you'd have to live with a bunch of other people for sure, that I know.
where I'm from:
30 m² = 13,03 € / m²
60 m² = 9,41 € / m²
100 m² = 9,13 € / m²
(munich would be 20€ / m² lol)
it's obviously getting cheaper per m² the bigger it gets, thus getting one big flat and sharing it with a couple guys is the best you can get for you money. For me it's actually way (?) more than 13.03€ / m². I don't come close to having 30m² as well as being right in the center of the city and not some 30 minute walk by foot until I get to university. So that both obviously makes it more expensive.
That being said a friend of mine who doesn't bother with inconvenience of it lives somewhat outsice the city. He has to make sure to get the bus that only shows up once every 30 minutes because there's no way you can cover that distance by foot but it's a CRAPTON cheaper. You can certainly make it somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
