|
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 March 22 2015 00:06 Velr wrote:
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.
I can't disagree with you there; transparency would make the whole thing a lot easier to digest.
|
On March 22 2015 00:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 00:06 Velr wrote:
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.
I can't disagree with you there; transparency would make the whole thing a lot easier to digest.
Putting it to public vote would also make it easier to digest.
Would also make it pretty dead, but then noone can make it seem anymore that the opponents of the trade agreement are in minority or that their (our) concerns are naive or uninformed or something, like proponents typically do.
|
On March 22 2015 00:01 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 23:57 Velr wrote: 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.
Yes that's exactly the point. The US has as much to lose as european in the TIPP. The problem is not USA vs Europe, but Corporations vs Societies.
The TTIP, in some of its current form, would for exemple end the new legilsation on finance market in the US, end independant trials on drugs like it exist in the US, drugs who would also cost more (because government would have less power to negotiate the price of said drugs, yes that's in the negotiation), no more national preference for public work especially in regard to social work, no more labelling on food (GMO food for exemple).
The idea that an increase in competition leads to an increase of GDP is also very wrong. Liberalism increase GDP in the short run, and that's it, in the long run all you have are big firms crushing all competition on market - unless you put law to prevent this kind of situation, like the US did a long time ago - and in this regard the US is not necessarily favored : there are plenty of big firms in europe that are waiting anxiously for the treaty.
|
'Public vote', that's cute.
They're right about us being uninformed, though not for a lack of trying. Of course we're uninformed when they're keeping such a close lid on things.
I'm not even sure we're in a majority. Our mayor (Eckard Würzner) recently quipped that for many people, civil liberties, healthy food and social welfare are a small price to pay for cheaper iPads.
|
The free trade agreement is fine as long as they get rid of the silly arbitration courts. The idea that companies can kick sovereign nations around is ridiculous. Also consumer and environmental standards obviously shouldn't get eroded.
On March 21 2015 23:25 Taguchi wrote:
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)
I think what we can all agree on is that wages should at least grow with productivity. Everything below that could probably be called austerity politics. The thing is (2000-2008):
![[image loading]](http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2011/peetersfig1.gif)
Greek wage development was in no way justifiable by productivity growth. If all countries around Greece can produce at a fraction of the cost Greece will not improve.
|
On March 22 2015 02:01 Nyxisto wrote:The free trade agreement is fine as long as they get rid of the silly arbitration courts. The idea that companies can kick sovereign nations around is ridiculous. Also consumer and environmental standards obviously shouldn't get eroded. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 23:25 Taguchi wrote:
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)
I think what we can all agree on is that wages should at least grow with productivity. Everything below that could probably be called austerity politics. The thing is (2000-2008): Greek wage development was in no way justifiable by productivity growth. If all countries around Greece can produce at a fraction of the cost Greece will not improve.
I don't agree. What does it do if wage increase are above productivity ? Inflation ? How is that bad ?
It's only a problem with the euro.
|
It logically increases unit labour cost and will put a strain on businesses and competitiveness. So if other countries /companies don't raise their wage equally the economy will suffer.
I don't agree. What does it do if wage increase are above productivity ? Inflation ? How is that bad ?
It's only a problem with the euro.
Please explain to me how getting rid of the Euro is more than a zero-sum game. You circumvent the competitiveness problem because of flexible exchange rates, but what you gain in exports is what you'll lose in imports. And living standard in Greece really depends on being able to import from the Eurozone.
|
On March 22 2015 02:13 Nyxisto wrote:
It logically increases unit labour cost and will put a strain on businesses and competitiveness. So if other countries /companies don't raise their wage equally the economy will suffer.
It increase nominal labor cost, but, as it always happened throughout history, the increase is repeated on price, and thus doesn't change competitivity. Real wage and real production cost do not change.
The problem is that, somehow, this very normal economic reality is completly impossible in the stupid euro area.
Can you explain me something ? Why do you think no country in the graph you linked is exactly on the productivity line ? They are all either above or below ?
|
I don't know why wage growth drifted so far apart, in Germany it certainly was politically motivated because even unions agreed to not push for higher wages during the time Germany was coined "the sick man of Europe", but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. I mean there's no rule set in stone how fast wages are supposed to grow, but having wages increase along productivity seems reasonable.
|
On March 22 2015 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know why wage growth drifted so far apart, but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. I mean there's no rule set in stone how fast wages are supposed to grow, but having wages increase along productivity seems reasonable.
Yeah but that's exactly the point : it's not about reason but about politics ? Why do you think wage still increase in recession when the productivity increase is negative ? It's politics, it's life.
Controlling wage like Germany is doing is impossible for most countries in the world because politically it's too complicated (Germany, much like all european country today, is politically dead). In may 1968, France is at the brink of a revolution, and the worker class, through its syndicates, negotiate for an increase of the minimum wage by 35 % !!! 35 % is HUGE, it's effectively a huge redistribution of income, from the top wages to the lowest, and it's was necessary because it permitted the country to go on and prevent the revolution - De Gaulle even thought about calling the army...
|
On March 22 2015 02:01 Nyxisto wrote:The free trade agreement is fine as long as they get rid of the silly arbitration courts. The idea that companies can kick sovereign nations around is ridiculous. Also consumer and environmental standards obviously shouldn't get eroded. Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 23:25 Taguchi wrote:
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)
I think what we can all agree on is that wages should at least grow with productivity. Everything below that could probably be called austerity politics. The thing is (2000-2008): Greek wage development was in no way justifiable by productivity growth. If all countries around Greece can produce at a fraction of the cost Greece will not improve.
Yes, great, there's low productivity in Greece and introduction of the euro + bad policies made us lose competitiveness too.
At the same time, high productivity in Germany and introduction of the euro + bad policies made Germany gain too much productivity in relation to most other EU countries that merely followed middle of the road policies. Now Germany thinks that everyone else should also pursue export-oriented, surplus generating policies and that this is actually possible in the real world. The outcome, so far, says nope. If nothing changes, either policies implemented or their outcome, EZ is destined to fail. And if the euro disintegrates, Germany will suddenly face introduction of a new, vastly appreciated currency, which will depress German competitiveness by as much as it appreciates. The result of that should be obvious for an export oriented economy.
It doesn't seem to be feasible for Germany to keep the euro without, somehow, paying for it (yes, it's a net benefactor of the EU coffers right now but this is nowhere near a proper surplus recycling mechanism). I dare say the best scenario (outside a bunch of highly competitive export oriented industries magically springing up in the rest of the EU) is for Germany to invest in the rest of the EU and do that without its taxpayers paying a dime - by letting EIB and ECB pursue growth policies. Simultaneously, naturally, budgets should be reviewed at the EU level so that moral hazard is avoided and bad policies aren't implemented anymore, like what happened during the euro boom years.
All of the above don't even need to include Greece at all, by the way. Greece could be part of the Northern club and it'd all still be true, if a bit less dramatic.
|
On March 22 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know why wage growth drifted so far apart, but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. I mean there's no rule set in stone how fast wages are supposed to grow, but having wages increase along productivity seems reasonable. Yeah but that's exactly the point : it's not about reason but about politics ? Why do you think wage still increase in recession when the productivity increase is negative ? It's politics, it's life. Controlling wage like Germany is doing is impossible for most countries in the world because politically it's too complicated (Germany, much like all european country today, is politically dead). In may 1968, France is at the brink of a revolution, and the worker class, through its syndicates, negotiate for an increase of the minimum wage by 35 % !!! 35 % is HUGE, it's effectively a huge redistribution of income, from the top wages to the lowest, and it's was necessary because it permitted the country to go on and prevent the revolution - De Gaulle even thought about calling the army...
We do have a word for threatening violence to obtain the wealth of another...
|
On March 22 2015 04:46 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On March 22 2015 02:25 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know why wage growth drifted so far apart, but I'm pretty sure it's not a good thing. I mean there's no rule set in stone how fast wages are supposed to grow, but having wages increase along productivity seems reasonable. Yeah but that's exactly the point : it's not about reason but about politics ? Why do you think wage still increase in recession when the productivity increase is negative ? It's politics, it's life. Controlling wage like Germany is doing is impossible for most countries in the world because politically it's too complicated (Germany, much like all european country today, is politically dead). In may 1968, France is at the brink of a revolution, and the worker class, through its syndicates, negotiate for an increase of the minimum wage by 35 % !!! 35 % is HUGE, it's effectively a huge redistribution of income, from the top wages to the lowest, and it's was necessary because it permitted the country to go on and prevent the revolution - De Gaulle even thought about calling the army... We do have a word for threatening violence to obtain the wealth of another...
? Capitalism ? Property right ?
|
when it comes to capital I feel the most important thing right now that needs to be done on the European level is to freeze Greek wealth abroad above 200k or whatever and make it able for the Greek government to tax it. 80% of Greek wealth has been accumulated by about 2000 families. It would be one way to increase social justice without putting strain on the economy.
Greece is not a poor country when it comes to private wealth at all. It's just very unfairly distributed. Instead of spreading the risk to the general European public I don't see why we shouldn't start with some kind of European wealth tax.
|
On March 22 2015 05:52 Nyxisto wrote:
when it comes to capital I feel the most important thing right now that needs to be done on the European level is to freeze Greek wealth abroad above 200k or whatever and make it able for the Greek government to tax it. 80% of Greek wealth has been accumulated by about 2000 families. It would be one way to increase social justice without putting strain on the economy.
Greece is not a poor country when it comes to private wealth at all. It's just very unfairly distributed. Instead of spreading the risk to the general European public I don't see why we shouldn't start with some kind of European wealth tax.
Yeah that doesn't really fix anything and only helps to make foreign investment dissapear instantly making the Greece situation even worse.
|
Austria1067 Posts
one huge problem i have with TTIP, and why i dont think europe can ever come out ahead on these negotiations is the following:
think about WHO does the negotiating
on the US side, its the government of the US, you can hate it as much as you want, but as a European citizen i think one thing is damn sure, no matter who is US President or the US Government - they will make damn sure that the US comes out ahead on EVERY fucking negotiation there is - and to be even more clear - they will use every asset they have to make sure of this. this means naturally as we learned the last years, full NSA surveillance and information about every politician who is even remotely involved in these negotiations.
on the EU side, you have the EU COMMISSION, is this the government of europe? many americans here maybe feel this way, but every european in this thread will tell you: HELL NO. there is no EU government, the nearest thing would be the EU parliament, is the parliament involved in the negotiations? no.
maybe the elected governments of the EU countrys are involved? no. in fact they dont even know a single word that is negotiated.
when EU country governments nor EU parliament is involved in any talks, how does the EU Commission even know what the people need and want out of this talks? answer: they dont, what they know is what EU and US Companys want out of this talks, cause they spend a lot of money lobbying to the EU commission.
and last, of course the EU doesn't have a NSA counterpart nor does any intelligence agency have the money or would even dare to bug phones (or similar things) from US representatives (i guess if that would have taken place in recent history, the US government would have gladly revealed this in the NSA Scandal over the last years).
so whats the conclusion here, i see many winners and only one loser in all this
US Company's and US Citizens are clearly on the winner side of this, cause they have the US Government looking out for them.
I guess EU Company's also will profit from this deal cause they have the EU Commission looking out for them.
the only one, no one fucking cares in this whole process are the european citizens.
|
Are you guys having fun speculating about the trade agreement? Fearmongering really necessary?
There is a hell of a lot to be gained from both EU and US with the trade agreement, as has been indicated by several studies. The grievances expressed here seem to be merely ideological. I also don't really understand what's really expected about making it more transparent. Should the negotiations be televised?
|
On March 22 2015 09:11 warding wrote:
Are you guys having fun speculating about the trade agreement? Fearmongering really necessary?
There is a hell of a lot to be gained from both EU and US with the trade agreement, as has been indicated by several studies. The grievances expressed here seem to be merely ideological. I also don't really understand what's really expected about making it more transparent. Should the negotiations be televised?
Shouldn't it be done by the people who were democratically elected by european citizens instead ?
I mean, they have the documents locked (and this is not fearmongering, this is basically what any EU politician working on the parlamient can confirm, as they had been trying to be able to have access to it). Fearmongering is the only tool to voice citizens concerns at this point.
|
Austria1067 Posts
On March 22 2015 09:11 warding wrote:
Are you guys having fun speculating about the trade agreement? Fearmongering really necessary?
There is a hell of a lot to be gained from both EU and US with the trade agreement, as has been indicated by several studies. The grievances expressed here seem to be merely ideological.
as has been indicated by several studies. The grievances expressed here seem to be merely ideological. I also don't really understand what's really expected about making it more transparent. Should the negotiations be televised?
omfg a study said something over something - lets go and make decisions over the lifes of some hundred million people haha
and what is this "hell of a lot" which can be gained? im truly interested, cause in all the negotiating there was never a single word out of the EU Commission whats to be gained, but you seem to know. in fact they didnt even tell anyone that there IS a negotiation.
and televised? are you trying to be sarcastic? hmm lets think maybe some of our elected politicians should be involved? or is this too much to ask?
|
On March 22 2015 09:31 phil.ipp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2015 09:11 warding wrote:
Are you guys having fun speculating about the trade agreement? Fearmongering really necessary?
There is a hell of a lot to be gained from both EU and US with the trade agreement, as has been indicated by several studies. The grievances expressed here seem to be merely ideological.
as has been indicated by several studies. The grievances expressed here seem to be merely ideological. I also don't really understand what's really expected about making it more transparent. Should the negotiations be televised? omfg a study said something over something - lets go and make decisions over the lifes of some hundred million people haha and what is this "hell of a lot" which can be gained? im truly interested, cause in all the negotiating there was never a single word out of the EU Commission whats to be gained, but you seem to know. in fact they didnt even tell anyone that there IS a negotiation. and televised? are you trying to be sarcastic? hmm lets think maybe some of our elected politicians should be involved? or is this too much to ask?
im unclear on this, are you for or against them being televised?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
