|
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. |
^The modest proposal has nothing to do with Greece in particular so yeah, it doesn't talk about problems only Greece has :p
And it's only modest in the sense that it doesn't require federalization to function. The point is that the euro is a very deeply flawed construct at present so we need to change it, but the political situation isn't conducive to outright federalization and, given these constraints, you get the proposal. US of EU would be far more preferable as a solution but this ain't happening right now.
Also, given QE and the limitless ECB bond buying programme running since 2012 ECB is sticking to a very narrow interpretation of not monetizing sovereign debt (granted, Germany was opposed to these schemes, no double talk here). Hell, Portugal isn't even investment grade according to rating agencies but bond yield is, what now, 2% ? But these funds aren't being channeled into the real economy effectively thus you get the current stagnation - under the modest proposal you're more or less guaranteed that the money will actually stimulate growth via EIB projects. Surely there's a bunch of stuff we'd like to build or renew around Europe...
EIB is supposed to issue its own bonds and ECB is supposed to intervene in the market if there aren't any investors around willing to buy them (and investors are materializing for negative yield Irish bonds these days sooo) - and use QE to do that, so no added risk for any country, except inflation I suppose (but inflation didn't materialize in the US at all and even if it did you could correct it then - not to mention that at this point it's actually a desirable outcome).
As for debt, proposal says that ECB should only accept 60% GDP of each nation's current debt in its books (Maastricht compliant debt hence that number, even Germany is above this level), to be repaid in the longterm. This is much more helpful for Italy or Spain than it is for Greece (you could argue this is already reality for Greece, given longterm maturity profile of most of its debt burden), which would still be at some 110% GDP or so even after this measure and would require longterm budgetary discipline to overcome the debt level. This would achieve the same thing the current ECB programmes achieve (lower bond yields) without the market distortion we're currently experiencing.
The main thing is investments, in my opinion. Currently we've left it to the market to come up with growth and it's not delivering the goods. Shared prosperity was the motto... once, and that's what it's gonna take if we're to move ahead with the union. And I find the union a far more appealing prospect than hoping against hope that devolution never happens while we cling to the status quo with all of its problems. We're going to be seeing a lot more of Lepen, UKIP, True Finns and whatever other abomination comes out next the way we're going (don't even want to mention my country's or Hungary's version of anti-EU sentiment, they're at a different level of vile).
|
Shared prosperity is great and I hate the crazy right-wing parties in Europe a lot, too. But a fact is that Greece pretty much had over a decade before the crisis to invest freely at incredibly low interest rates and make the best out of it, but if you compare productivity and labour cost to Eastern Europe or the Baltics they've had very little to show for it even before austerity started. The modest proposal already happened once. I think it's nearly impossible to hit the reset button and sell the same thing to the majority of the European electorate again. Not to mention that further fiscal integration also needs further political integration, which is something the countries that need it the most at the moment are also staunchly opposing.
|
On March 21 2015 12:18 Nyxisto wrote:
Shared prosperity is great and I hate the crazy right-wing parties in Europe a lot, too. But a fact is that Greece pretty much had over a decade before the crisis to invest freely at incredibly low interest rates and make the best out of it, but if you compare productivity and labour cost to Eastern Europe or the Baltics they've had very little to show for it even before austerity started. The modest proposal already happened once. I think it's nearly impossible to hit the reset button and sell the same thing to the majority of the European electorate again. Not to mention that further fiscal integration also needs further political integration, which is something the countries that need it the most at the moment are also staunchly opposing.
Indeed, Poles, Slovaks and the Balts took their EU membership and used it as a tool to advance themselves significantly. Greeks, not so much.
|
I heard of some study that basically claimed that one of the main reason for Greece failure is that there is just no trust, not in the goverment, not in the community, not even your neighbours... just none (ranking dead last in all of these areas).
So everyone feels ok cheating the system when he can because... Everyone else does too.
Thats obviously bad for business, bad for taxation, bad for everything.
|
All analysis based solely on trust are stupid tho.
You're funny opposing Greece and other countries, when the europe as a whole is doing bad (what about Spain then ? And Italy ?). It's a competitive economy, pretty obvious that if some are winners, you will have some losers.
|
On March 21 2015 05:56 Taguchi wrote:What? I made a factual comment about the very latest round of mini bank run, which was sparked by a Dijsselbloem comment a couple days ago. There was a distinct outflow spike after this comment, would you attribute it to anything other than the comment? Why? I am not referring to prior developments in any way. Hilarious Varoufakis blogs, eh. Is economic stagnation also hilarious? The rise of right-wing extremism throughout Europe? These were very predictable events (Varoufakis correctly predicted them too), courtesy of idiotic policies pursued these last few years all over Europe, policies that fly in the face of basic macroeconomic theory - the Americans followed a different set of policies, and even pushed for Europe to do the same, but alas! The above are all quite distinct from the Greek problem, which is indeed unique. The extent of inefficiency, corruption, bad policies and so on in my country was and still is staggering. The problem was exacerbated by an extremely idiotic macroeconomic adjustment programme that never tried to solve core issues but simply opted for depressing an entire economy wholesale (alongside its ability to repay the very loans attached to such a programme) which brings us to today. I have posted about the huge discrepancy between targets set for growth and unemployment by the programme and reality before. About Varoufakis himself... I posted a while ago that we are sure to see a great effort expended on discrediting the man, because what he says might be dangerous for the economic elite and the people currently in power. This has happened, to say the least. What I haven't seen, not even once, not in the article you cite either, is any sort of debate about the merits of his core ideas. Everything and anything about the man's lifestyle, public discourse, outspokenness, number of appearances, oratory skills, dress code, not one single commentary about his actual economic ideas/proposals. I find this curious, since his core proposals are extremely easily accessible by everyone and anyone. I also find it interesting that, whenever the press at large does mention some actual economic ideas coming out of a FinMin and don't focus on whether his handshake was sufficiently manly or sth, widespread support suddenly emerges. Yes, you will have to look beyond the lifestyle commentary to find how his speech was received even in this article. Another example. Or you could look at the people who endorse the basic premise of the modest proposal; the list includes economic nobel laureates, (former, naturally, the active ones have interests to protect after all) politicians and so on. Finally, you can be as right-wing as you want, please do not put words in my mouth. Discourteous at best. I have tried to stick to the facts whenever I post here, kindly do the same. I think you even corrected me (think it was you...) on a point Varoufakis was wrong about concerning the newest Basel rules for banking and I readily conceded since you were correct - I mention this as further proof that I am, at the very least, a reasonable person. Are you?
Sorry I was drunk yesterday and I got carried away.
|
Whenever you read any report on TTIP, it's universally agreed that we're just getting fucked in the ass and the only ones who stand to gain are American corporations. Our welfare system will suffer, the quality of our food will suffer and civil liberties are plummeting to the level of the USA.
Does it at least promise any benefits for the European economy or is it just universally bad for us?
|
Keep reading then. One of the few safe things to say on TTIP is that there is no universal agreement on practically anything contained in the current form of the agreement.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's no way to talk to your most important export market.
|
On March 21 2015 22:39 oneofthem wrote:
that's no way to talk to your most important export market.
I'm not having a go at them. It just seems that TTIP is bringing us everything that's shitty about the USA and nothing of what's great about it.
I just hope by that point I'm ready to emmigrate permanenly to Canada...
|
Maybe there you can learn more about the TTIP instead of talking about how it "seems" to you. Maybe not though.
|
On March 21 2015 22:55 farvacola wrote:
Maybe there you can learn more about the TTIP instead of talking about how it "seems" to you. Maybe not though.
Maybe you can enlighten me instead of attacking me personally. That would be splendid.
Because official reports are pretty dire:
https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/fileadmin/media/gruenebundestag_de/themen_az/gentechnik/150112_Studie_TTIP_CETA_Gentechnik_Gruene_Bundestag_.pdf
Zulassung als politische Entscheidung oder als Verwaltungsakt:
In der EU entscheidet nicht eine Behörde, sondern die Politik über Zulassungen und ggf. über
Auflagen bei der Zulassung. Damit wird klar gestellt, dass die Verantwortung für die jeweiligen
Zulassungen bei der Politik liegt. Zudem wird es ermöglicht, auch andere Gründe als nur den
Risikoaspekt in die Entscheidung mit einzubeziehen. In den USA und Kanada sind für derartige
Entscheidungen hingegen die entsprechenden Behörden zuständig.
›
Zulassungspflicht für gentechnisch veränderte Pflanzen:
Bei der Erfassung gentechnisch veränderter Organismen ist das System in den USA und Kanada
nicht konsistent, da der Gesetzgeber gentechnische Verfahren nicht von anderen Herstellungsver
-
fahren unterscheidet. In diesen Staaten können – anders als in der EU – gentechnisch veränderte
Pflanzen ohne Zulassungsprüfung auf den Markt gelangen, weil sie durch das Raster der Behör
-
den fallen. Angesichts der Entwicklung neuer Technologien zur Veränderung des Erbgutes ist zu
erwarten, dass diese Lücken in der Zulassungspflicht in den USA noch zunehmen werden.
›
Kennzeichnungspflicht:
In den USA und Kanada haben die Verbraucher und Landwirte keine Transparenz darüber, ob
Lebens- oder Futtermittel aus gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen hergestellt werden, weil eine
entsprechende Kennzeichnung fehlt.
›
Umgang mit wissenschaftlichen Unsicherheiten:
In der EU müssen auch Unsicherheiten im Rahmen der Risikobewertung und der Zulassungsver
-
fahren berücksichtigt werden. In den USA werden (vereinfacht gesprochen) gentechnisch verän
-
derten Pflanzen bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils als sicher angesehen.
›
Schutz der gentechnikfreien Landwirtschaft:
In den USA und Kanada gibt es keine gesetzlichen Regelungen zum Schutz der gentechnikfreien
Landwirtschaft oder gegen eine unkontrollierte Ausbreitung gentechnisch veränderter Organis
-
men in der Umwelt. In der EU gibt es entsprechende Regelungen, wenn diese auch vielleicht
nicht ausreichend erscheinen.
You probably don't speak German and I won't translate for people who dismiss these reports just because it is I who quotes them, but there you go. Use google translate if you really care about the issue and not just about attacking me personally.
Just look at the reach of the fossil fuel industries in the US and tell me that won't be an issue in Europe.
Tell me with a straight face that neither our food quality, nor our commitment to renewable energy nor our free education will suffer from TTIP and I will know that you're insincere.
My question was simple: are there any foreseeable economic benefits for Europeans, or only for Americans?
|
On March 21 2015 12:18 Nyxisto wrote:
Shared prosperity is great and I hate the crazy right-wing parties in Europe a lot, too. But a fact is that Greece pretty much had over a decade before the crisis to invest freely at incredibly low interest rates and make the best out of it, but if you compare productivity and labour cost to Eastern Europe or the Baltics they've had very little to show for it even before austerity started. The modest proposal already happened once. I think it's nearly impossible to hit the reset button and sell the same thing to the majority of the European electorate again. Not to mention that further fiscal integration also needs further political integration, which is something the countries that need it the most at the moment are also staunchly opposing.
Greece had over a decade to do good stuff for its economy and instead destroyed it, correct. And the political parties responsible have just now, with the last election, finally gone out the door. At which point all trust suddenly disappeared and we're talking about grexit again, just because someone read the damn numbers and realized that imposing severe austerity on a deflationary economy leads to total destruction of what's left of the economy, not recovery - nevermind giving the (possibly) uncorrupt new government a smidgeon of a chance to enact real reform. When do I get to call shenanigans on someone?!
The majority of the European electorate is not pro austerity, judging by polls in any country hit by it, except Germans who are used to it by now (I guess, you've been at it since, what, reunification? although I've seen some reports that wages will finally be allowed to rise a little)
The modest proposal doesn't require EU treaty amendments or anything formal like that, that's its strong point. Political integration can only happen if people support it, and people will support it only if they see a chance for prosperity in their shared future. Austerity politics is... not conducive to this goal (it doesn't seem to be working for any other goal mind you, judging by the current rut, but that's beside the point).
|
On March 21 2015 23:06 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 22:55 farvacola wrote:
Maybe there you can learn more about the TTIP instead of talking about how it "seems" to you. Maybe not though. Maybe you can enlighten me instead of attacking me personally. That would be splendid. Because official reports are pretty dire: https://www.gruene-bundestag.de/fileadmin/media/gruenebundestag_de/themen_az/gentechnik/150112_Studie_TTIP_CETA_Gentechnik_Gruene_Bundestag_.pdfShow nested quote +Zulassung als politische Entscheidung oder als Verwaltungsakt:
In der EU entscheidet nicht eine Behörde, sondern die Politik über Zulassungen und ggf. über
Auflagen bei der Zulassung. Damit wird klar gestellt, dass die Verantwortung für die jeweiligen
Zulassungen bei der Politik liegt. Zudem wird es ermöglicht, auch andere Gründe als nur den
Risikoaspekt in die Entscheidung mit einzubeziehen. In den USA und Kanada sind für derartige
Entscheidungen hingegen die entsprechenden Behörden zuständig.
›
Zulassungspflicht für gentechnisch veränderte Pflanzen:
Bei der Erfassung gentechnisch veränderter Organismen ist das System in den USA und Kanada
nicht konsistent, da der Gesetzgeber gentechnische Verfahren nicht von anderen Herstellungsver
-
fahren unterscheidet. In diesen Staaten können – anders als in der EU – gentechnisch veränderte
Pflanzen ohne Zulassungsprüfung auf den Markt gelangen, weil sie durch das Raster der Behör
-
den fallen. Angesichts der Entwicklung neuer Technologien zur Veränderung des Erbgutes ist zu
erwarten, dass diese Lücken in der Zulassungspflicht in den USA noch zunehmen werden.
›
Kennzeichnungspflicht:
In den USA und Kanada haben die Verbraucher und Landwirte keine Transparenz darüber, ob
Lebens- oder Futtermittel aus gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen hergestellt werden, weil eine
entsprechende Kennzeichnung fehlt.
›
Umgang mit wissenschaftlichen Unsicherheiten:
In der EU müssen auch Unsicherheiten im Rahmen der Risikobewertung und der Zulassungsver
-
fahren berücksichtigt werden. In den USA werden (vereinfacht gesprochen) gentechnisch verän
-
derten Pflanzen bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils als sicher angesehen.
›
Schutz der gentechnikfreien Landwirtschaft:
In den USA und Kanada gibt es keine gesetzlichen Regelungen zum Schutz der gentechnikfreien
Landwirtschaft oder gegen eine unkontrollierte Ausbreitung gentechnisch veränderter Organis
-
men in der Umwelt. In der EU gibt es entsprechende Regelungen, wenn diese auch vielleicht
nicht ausreichend erscheinen. You probably don't speak German and I won't translate for people who dismiss these reports just because it is I who quotes them, but there you go. Use google translate if you really care about the issue and not just about attacking me personally. Just look at the reach of the fossil fuel industries in the US and tell me that won't be an issue in Europe. Tell me with a straight face that neither our food quality, nor our commitment to renewable energy nor our free education will suffer from TTIP and I will know that you're insincere. My question was simple: are there any foreseeable economic benefits for Europeans, or only for Americans?
So, as a threshold issue, I find it odd that you use language like "our commitment to renewable energy" when the topic of Germany's energy infrastructure isn't even agreed upon in Germany itself. There are good reasons behind the idea that loosening up fossil fuel trading standards would benefit Germany and not harm it, most notably in terms of a reduction in reliance on Russian fuel. Clearly you don't think this, and yet you see fit to speak on behalf of all Germans. These are not "us vs. them" topics, to put it plainly; there exist large numbers of people in Europe and the United States that consider the ramifications of TTIP as positives. I'm personally still on the fence myself, but you aren't doing anyone any favors by pretending that the divides on the issues raised by TTIP fall along neat national and continental boundaries. So yeah, keep painting in broad, nationalistic strokes. I'm sure the finished work will turn out great.
|
Please, explain to me what's positive about TTIP, because my media paints it as a shadowy corporations deal with documents hidden where europoliticians haven't been able to read it.
|
How do I presume to speak on behalf of all Germans? And 'us vs. them'? Nationalistic?
Where are you even getting that from? Do you actually read anything I say or do you just see my username and decide to be as big an asshole as you possibly can?
What's wrong with my phrasing? If one country gets 30% of it's electricity from renewable energies and another country gets 10% from it, why is it wrong to assume that the former country is more committed to it than the other?
And I wasn't even talking about Germany, EU countries in general have a higher percentage than the US. w
There is an EU-wide energy target of 20%, whereas in the US there is a major lobby that doesn't even aknowledge the fact that man-made climate change is real, for fuck's sake...
And I'm certainly not speaking in terms of 'us vs. them' or 'us vs. US'. That's just unfair...
|
So the biggest positives being pointed at by pro-TTIP folks are estimated increases in GDP for Europe and the US relative to the rest of the world. The estimates vary by a fair margin, and it can easily be argued that the market sectors most likely to benefit from TTIP are the sort that won't "bleed through" to others, so this is an easily arguable point. The agreement focuses on non-traditional trade barriers (as trade is already pretty free between Europe and the US), so most of the other benefits are hotly contested, such as GMO trade regulations and fossil fuel trade allotments.
On March 21 2015 23:51 SixStrings wrote:
How do I presume to speak on behalf of all Germans? And 'us vs. them'? Nationalistic?
Where are you even getting that from? Do you actually read anything I say or do you just see my username and decide to be as big an asshole as you possibly can?
What's wrong with my phrasing? If one country gets 30% of it's electricity from renewable energies and another country gets 10% from it, why is it wrong to assume that the former country is more committed to it than the other?
And I wasn't even talking about Germany, EU countries in general have a higher percentage than the US.
Your phrasing isn't the problem, the content is. Oil companies certainly have a wide reach here in the US, but you act as though the Keystone pipeline debate isn't happening and that new fracking regulations weren't just set.
You are arguing in nationalistic terms because you are entirely leaving out the disagreements that take place in the countries you claim to be talking about. Europe does not have a singular attitude on GMO's, renewable energy, or trade barriers in general, so stop with the "what good is this for Europe?" nonsense. I don't think its surprising to suggest that more than a few European nations would scoff at a German using such language.
|
there exist large numbers of people in Europe and the United States that consider the ramifications of TTIP as positives.
I have never heard of any european "people" supporting ttip nor have i heard of anything good about it in europe...
No one, except probably some big companies that have enough money for extreme lobbying, wants this here.
|
On March 21 2015 23:57 Velr wrote:Show nested quote + there exist large numbers of people in Europe and the United States that consider the ramifications of TTIP as positives. I have never heard of any european "people" supporting ttip nor have i heard of anything good about it in europe... No one, except probably some big companies that have enough money for extreme lobbying, wants this here.
Well yea, perhaps I used the wrong word there, as I won't claim to have any sort of finger on the actual pulse of European attitudes on TTIP. I'm merely pointing out that some European interests like those represented by the Centre for Economic Policy Research and corporations like Siemens are in favor of the agreement.
|
What pisses people off is just, that TTIP would override wide arrays of laws AND is appareantly decided on in secret.
It just smells extremly shady. It could be a gold shitting donkey, but if its implemented in such a way people will feel that something is wrong.
It feels like a kick in the balls to democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
