EPTEurope can print another 200b to give to Greece but it has to stop at one point?
You understand the difference between printing (monetizing the debt) and giving a loan ?
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 571
| 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. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
You understand the difference between printing (monetizing the debt) and giving a loan ? | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 20 2016 00:13 pmh wrote: Europe is pretty solidary. Greece has been a net receiver from the eu,they already have had a lot of money for basicly free,money that other countries didn't get. Everyone wants to spend more then they make,but when everyone is doing that there is a big problem. Greece should never have joined the eu but at the time they where all to happy to exchange their always falling drachme and high inflation for the strong euro and low inflation. The euro itself was a big gift from the north towards the south, in the order of several trillions. That's why you saw a huge boom in Greece after the introduction of the euro,a lot of money was being pumped into the country. But that was a big waste,silly to expect that the Greece economy would eventually run with the same efficiency as the german economy,maybe it was more wishfull thinking "lets spend big and something good will come out of it in the end" For the north it was a trade off,they got the free market in return and their industry was very capable of making good use of that free market. They went for the long term advantage,greece got the short term advantage. But for the citizens in the north there was no trade off, inflation of 100% in 5 years, value of any safings like pensions cut in halve. Europe can print another 200b to give to Greece but it has to stop at one point? ?? The European Union should finally concede that Greece needs a DEBT CUT. Even the IMF says it, and they're certainly not socialist activists! (Also lol @ “Europe is pretty solidary”. Germany and France bullied Greece to help their own banks, no solidarity there.) | ||
|
pmh
1399 Posts
On October 20 2016 00:44 WhiteDog wrote: You understand the difference between printing (monetizing the debt) and giving a loan ? Ya they do give a loan, but the loan that is printed money. Its not like the eu has a safings account somewhere with a few trillion they can draw from. All the money is being printed,weakening the euro. The 60b-100b they use every month to buy bonds from banks at all time high price with negative interest lol,its all printed its not real. The central banks they will keep buying till they have such a large amount of debt that they can force anything. | ||
|
Banaora
Germany234 Posts
Because if you set conditions for solidarity you would need to limit the sovereignty of the receiving country to be able to control and if needed to enforce said conditions. Both are things that are highly problematic in my view to the existence of a community. In theory there were rules which all members signed off to prevent debt growing too high. Many countries broke these rules including Germany and France and now we are in the mess together. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 20 2016 02:43 pmh wrote: Ya they do give a loan, but the loan that is printed money. Its not like the eu has a safings account somewhere with a few trillion they can draw from. All the money is being printed,weakening the euro. The 60b-100b they use every month to buy bonds from banks at all time high price with negative interest lol,its all printed its not real. The central banks they will keep buying till they have such a large amount of debt that they can force anything. It's still a loan, so the cost is paid by greeks more than others. Also, it does not weaken the euro, I don't know what you mean by weakening the euro but lowering the exchange rate of the euro is beneficial for germans. The increase in quantity of money does not really create any inflation. On October 20 2016 03:05 Banaora wrote: I wonder if those raising their voices in support of solidarity would want European tax payer money to go to the receiving country without any conditions? Because if you set conditions for solidarity you would need to limit the sovereignty of the receiving country to be able to control and if needed to enforce said conditions. Both are things that are highly problematic in my view to the existence of a community. In theory there were rules which all members signed off to prevent debt growing too high. Many countries broke these rules including Germany and France and now we are in the mess together. That's the idea behind solidarity tho. We don't ask people to pay back their unemployment benefit, we are just conscious of the fact that someone who is in unemployment might be employed in a possible future and show solidarity to others through taxation. This is not a moral problem in regard to the euro, it's just economy. The common currency cannot work without some kind of fiscal redistribution in euro from the richest to the poorest. If the richest are not ready to pay to help the poorest to get out of their situation without asking them anything, then they will never get out of their situation because the fixed exchange rates in the euro zone will prevent them to do so. That's just basic economy really. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18207 Posts
| ||
|
Banaora
Germany234 Posts
Another thing is social security for example when you never worked and live off the social security system. You are right here that we do not ask people to repay, BUT people receiving money have certain obligations. So there are conditions linked to the money coming from society. And there is punishment if these conditions are not met. So at least in Germany there is no free money. If you just hand out money with nothing in return in the name of solidarity you are incentivizing people/countries to abuse the system and live off others. As a one time measure in my opinion there can be some debt relief for example the EZB buying a certain percentage of bonds from each country in the Eurozone (so all are treated the same) and canceling the bonds so no need to pay them back. This will give a boost and help in the short term. (Though it's unfair to all other countries not in the Eurozone.) But there needs to be a long term solution. Just handing out money whenever someone cries is not a solution. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 20 2016 03:52 Banaora wrote: I don't know how unemployment benefit is handled in France. In Germany while you work you pay into an insurance and you get money out of this insurance scheme if you are unemployed (ALG I). Another thing is social security for example when you never worked and live off the social security system. You are right here that we do not ask people to repay, BUT people receiving money have certain obligations. So there are conditions linked to the money coming from society. And there is punishment if these conditions are not met. So at least in Germany there is no free money. If you just hand out money with nothing in return in the name of solidarity you are incentivizing people/countries to abuse the system and live off others. As a one time measure in my opinion there can be some debt relief for example the EZB buying a certain percentage of bonds from each country in the Eurozone (so all are treated the same) and canceling the bonds so no need to pay them back. This will give a boost and help in the short term. (Though it's unfair to all other countries not in the Eurozone.) But there needs to be a long term solution. Just handing out money whenever someone cries is not a solution. Do you have the possibility to take any insurance ? Is there concurrence ? Can you take an insurance for high earners usually not unemployed ? If no, then it's solidarity : some people pay more than they should to support the unemployment of others. Usually, you get a certain % of your income, up to a certain threshold. Of course it is paid, but you don't have the chance to pay or not, nor to negotiate your the level of income you get while unemployed (because, for some people, it is not economically efficient to actually pay the insurance). So yes, from a collective standpoint, some people hand money to others. It's the same for social security : young people cost way less but pay as much in public healthcare. | ||
|
Banaora
Germany234 Posts
I also support in some form the transfer of money from richer regions to poorer regions. I don't say countries because there are poor/rich regions in every country and if we support regions it is not so nationalistic and playing one country against the other. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 20 2016 04:26 Banaora wrote: I also support in some form the transfer of money from richer regions to poorer regions. I don't say countries because there are poor/rich regions in every country and if we support regions it is not so nationalistic and playing one country against the other. You are totally right, and if you want to save the euro, that's the only solution imo. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On October 20 2016 04:53 WhiteDog wrote: You are totally right, and if you want to save the euro, that's the only solution imo. Only if that solidarity is conditional, i.e. fix your internal problems or the money tap closes. Free money is usually an incentive to maintain a status quo, not an incentive to actually make necessary changes. On an individual level, people who are unemployed and receive unemployment benefits are expected to loook for a job. If they don't look hard enough they risk losing access to those benefits. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10137 Posts
On October 21 2016 13:47 maartendq wrote: Only if that solidarity is conditional, i.e. fix your internal problems or the money tap closes. Free money is usually an incentive to maintain a status quo, not an incentive to actually make necessary changes. On an individual level, people who are unemployed and receive unemployment benefits are expected to loook for a job. If they don't look hard enough they risk losing access to those benefits. And what happens to those unemployed when there are no jobs to be found for a very long period of time ? | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 21 2016 20:45 Godwrath wrote: And what happens to those unemployed when there are no jobs to be found for a very long period of time ? They get blamed for being “lazy” and “profiteers”. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On October 21 2016 13:47 maartendq wrote: Only if that solidarity is conditional, i.e. fix your internal problems or the money tap closes. Free money is usually an incentive to maintain a status quo, not an incentive to actually make necessary changes. On an individual level, people who are unemployed and receive unemployment benefits are expected to loook for a job. If they don't look hard enough they risk losing access to those benefits. And people who are sick are expected to get better. I think you are missing the point with your presentation really. In the case of europe vs greece, we gave them multiple loans (with favorable interest rates) associated with certain things that they had to abide for (like selling all public assets, which is dumb). Unemployment benefit is a short term benefit given to someone who lost its job as long as it is searching for a job : there are no really biding things the unemployed has to do (like accepting any job or searching jobs at inferior pay levels), nor does he needs to pay back the money he is receiving. Worse than that, in some of the most developped countries, the unemployed receive even more help through various formations in order to increase its employability. It's pretty easy to see where is the solidarity and where it is not. The simple fact that unemployment benefit are given to "someone", anyone, and thus is not discriminary, is one of the essential component of solidarity. Anybody can be in a position to get this benefit, anybody, even if we know a rich dude will not. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10842 Posts
On October 21 2016 20:53 TheDwf wrote: They get blamed for being “lazy” and “profiteers”. They move to Switzerland/Germany/Austria/Netherlands/Scandinavia... | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
On October 14 2016 01:15 Laurens wrote: + Show Spoiler + I'd go for shithole. There are constant fights between the (overwhelmingly muslim) local youth and the police. Here's an article from last month if you're interested, it's in Dutch though. http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160918_02473948 Here is a video of it: Stuff like this happens on a weekly basis, I don't go there anymore  Not sure which areas Zatic is refering to, I can only think of Schaarbeek that's equal or worse. no molotov over the police ? belgium needs to step up their game | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On October 20 2016 04:26 Banaora wrote: Well maybe something like such an insurance scheme could be a solution for further crisis. Every country would pay into it a certain percentage of GDP for example. And when certain conditions are met in a crisis a country gets money out of this insurance scheme. Some form of crisis insurance so to say. I also support in some form the transfer of money from richer regions to poorer regions. I don't say countries because there are poor/rich regions in every country and if we support regions it is not so nationalistic and playing one country against the other. This, so much this. Especially the point about regions. But in my opinion money transfers only make sense if the goal is to federalize sooner rather than later. If euro skepticism has gotten to the point were people have given up on the idea of a unified europe, then we should just get rid of transfers and the infrastructure support funds all together. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
NickPerentesis@Hotmail.com is my paypal, feel free to donate. It's for the betterment of the region. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
So what do you do then if the problem is exasperated? What if money has already been thrown at the problem and the problem is they just need a continual stream of money for generations? I'm not saying that's always the case or will be the case, I'm saying it certainly has been the case in some areas and there's been almost no improvements. What then? Will you ever look at the data and say, "Fuck it, time to cut this region loose it's been a sink for 30 years?" Or do you say, "We're good people and we'll do it for 100 years if we must!" That's a hard sell. | ||
| ||
