|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 31 2015 02:33 Velr wrote:
You really just don't get it...
And if you claim that the issues that have arisen with the euro are "state level" problems... Well then you have some serious explaining to do.
you have a single currency without fiscal union, and with no central trade and currency decisionmaking. reliance on bond market restricts you to a household budget.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 31 2015 02:37 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 00:09 oneofthem wrote:On March 30 2015 23:58 WhiteDog wrote:
Giving "force to the treaty" above government is just attacking sovereignty. Economic argument over political ones are plain wrong and I don't really need to argue for that. how do these absolute sovereigns enter into treaties then? by creating obligation sourced from their sovereign power. this is how suing a sovereign works, the sovereign agrees to be bound by certain obligations. we are not talking about some organization coming out of the ethers and controlling everything. it's a framework created by the treaty participants. Support for the EU is at an all-time low because of the way it handled the eurocrisis; people want less EU meddling in their internal affairs, not more, especially not when it comes to economic policy. There is no public support for even more americanisation / neoliberalisation of the European labour market, as the success of parties like Podemos, FN and Syriza are clearly demonstrating.
of course, but the point here is that these people are also simply mad for the wrong reasons, and their lack of federalization is the problem in the first place.
|
On March 31 2015 02:41 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 02:33 Velr wrote:
You really just don't get it...
And if you claim that the issues that have arisen with the euro are "state level" problems... Well then you have some serious explaining to do. you have a single currency without fiscal union, and with no central trade and currency decisionmaking. reliance on bond market restricts you to a household budget.
Yes, thats an EU wide problem and i don't disagree one bit. Having a monetary union whiteout all the other stuff "normal" countries with their own currency have, your in for a harsh ride.
So please tell me, how do you deal with these on the federal/state level? Naturally, while not having any direct power over the fucking thing... Else it would be too easy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
obviously i'd advocate for stronger federalization of fiscal decisions, and the interface between state and banks should be at the federal level. whether it's politically possible doesn't really concern me im not in europe.
|
So your advocating for the things that lack to solve the problems that exist because these things lack.
Your a genius.
You really should put your mind to US domestic issues, i'm sure with your sort of "problem solving skills" the US will get rid of all its problems within weeks...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
being aware of the inadequacy of the eurozone, specifically these institutional features, should be enough to generate reform to establish said features.
the lack of social security, or a constitution, did not prevent these institutions from beign established in the u.s., because there was effective political leadership to accomplish these ends. europe lacking the political will or leadership is the problem.
the unwillingness of european creditor nations to see the problem as an institutional one, and instead blame debtors exclusively while not considering the solution of sharing legacy debt is the immediate cause of the current impasse. this is obviously a state level squabble.
|
On March 31 2015 02:11 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 00:25 Nyxisto wrote:On March 31 2015 00:09 oneofthem wrote:On March 30 2015 23:58 WhiteDog wrote:
Giving "force to the treaty" above government is just attacking sovereignty. Economic argument over political ones are plain wrong and I don't really need to argue for that. how do these absolute sovereigns enter into treaties then? by creating obligation sourced from their sovereign power. this is how suing a sovereign works, the sovereign agrees to be bound by certain obligations. we are not talking about some organization coming out of the ethers and controlling everything. it's a framework created by the treaty participants. Why should there be some kind of equal relationship between businesses and states in the first place? If a company wants to do business in the country fine, if they don't like the regulations and legal situations they're also free to not do that and do their business in another country. This is what this actually boils down to in this thread because the predominantly American view is that multinational companies should have some kind of grip over sovereign nations in one way or the other while nearly everybody else argues that politics and public institutions are actually the only legitimate actors when public interest and money is involved. The are no equal relationships when signing a treaty, it's a commitment a government makes to encourage foreign investment. You can see what happened to Argentina or Venezuela when foreign investment dries up (or when you have unreasonably large governments) Not related to the treaty discussion per se, but many of us believe people themselves are the only legitimate actors when their money is involved and that individuals have the right to choose for themselves; therefore we should have small governments that don't steal individuals wealth and let them make their own choices. That big governments are always inneficient, corrupt and that people should be left with as much control as possible over their life and wealth.
Big governments are demonstrably not always inefficient.
And big corporations roaming free leaves people with little choice, regardless of how much wealth they have or don't have. It's even worse when the government is in on it as in the US (subsidies, special treatment).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 31 2015 01:48 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 01:37 oneofthem wrote:
i know that, but my point stands. you can have EU reform etc but there is no real argument given for preferring old national attachments. Yes there are : the complete incapacity of europe to pass through cultural representation, and thus its inability to create feeling of unity. Those cultural representations have role both economically and politically and make any institutions viable - the idea of "nation", as Benedict Anderson pointed out, permitted collective to pass beyond class antagonism. I'm not saying I prefer old national attachments, I am saying those attachments are both what makes democracy within nations possible and democracy within the europe impossible. The lack of solidarity between Germany and Greece is a good exemple of that : you can ask Greek to sacrifice themselves for their nation, but you cannot expect german to accept losing capital for the benefit of greeks. The institutions build themselves on cultural ground, not the other way around.
the imaginary community under anderson does not attach to traditional loyalties, but is a dynamic polity that can expand with integration such as the press.
|
On March 31 2015 02:41 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 02:33 Velr wrote:
You really just don't get it...
And if you claim that the issues that have arisen with the euro are "state level" problems... Well then you have some serious explaining to do. you have a single currency without fiscal union, and with no central trade and currency decisionmaking. reliance on bond market restricts you to a household budget.
There are no central trade because the market is not centralized : it is one of its main quality but it's beyond the point.
We have no decision making because we have no common unity. The problem are not at state level, the problem is our own incapacity to have a federal government. You don't build federalism on nothing, a US citizen should know that more than anyone else.
On March 31 2015 04:05 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 01:48 WhiteDog wrote:On March 31 2015 01:37 oneofthem wrote:
i know that, but my point stands. you can have EU reform etc but there is no real argument given for preferring old national attachments. Yes there are : the complete incapacity of europe to pass through cultural representation, and thus its inability to create feeling of unity. Those cultural representations have role both economically and politically and make any institutions viable - the idea of "nation", as Benedict Anderson pointed out, permitted collective to pass beyond class antagonism. I'm not saying I prefer old national attachments, I am saying those attachments are both what makes democracy within nations possible and democracy within the europe impossible. The lack of solidarity between Germany and Greece is a good exemple of that : you can ask Greek to sacrifice themselves for their nation, but you cannot expect german to accept losing capital for the benefit of greeks. The institutions build themselves on cultural ground, not the other way around. the imaginary community under anderson does not attach to traditional loyalties, but is a dynamic polity that can expand with integration such as the press.
And ? Your point is blank : yes he use the press as one of the main medium through which imaginary communities are built and expanded, it does not mean that nation are build on air.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
point is you can build it now, or be in the process of building it through positive political action.
and as the factor preventing federalization is too much regional antagonism, i don't see how you are objecting to my description of the situation.
|
On March 31 2015 04:15 oneofthem wrote:
point is you can build it now, or be in the process of building it through positive political action.
and as the factor preventing federalization is too much regional antagonism, i don't see how you are objecting to my description of the situation.
You can build it now yes absolutly !
But again, don't forget that Anderson write in length about LANGUAGE, which is tradition in essence - not to mention all the other "cultural roots" (that's the name of the first chapter) that explain the persistance of those imaginary communities. You can build a common belonging through imagination, culture and education, not through trade. This does the opposite : it enhance antagonism.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
language stands in for common concepts and significant identity. there are examples of successful multilingual federations.
|
On March 31 2015 04:18 oneofthem wrote:
language stands in for common concepts and significant identity. there are examples of successful multilingual federations.
Democratic ? Based on trade ? Show me.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there are some in western europe
|
there are things that you cant just make right with positive political actions.
like race problems in america 
the cultures are too different, you cant fuse them together in the near future. if someone would try something like this, it definitely wouldn't involve every member state. for example there is no way the britains would even think about doing anything in that direction.
next problem is, nobody except europe would gain something from a strong united europe, quite the contrary, the US would lose big time in about every aspect there is.
so apart from the seemingly insurmountable cultural differences, there are even outside forces who work against a united europe.
i dont get your totally arrogant and ignorant attitude, like your government does anything better.
i dont dare to look into the US Politics thread but i guess you play the know-it-all there too.
|
and nobody looks for answers here from you, if people in europe dont know how to solve this, you certainly will not.
the whole thing started, to give you an idea what the mood in europe is, what people feel.
you cant discuss this away. this is a situation that was growing decades. its not going away with "some" reform.
so just let it sink in, accept that people feel this way.
its the same way i wouldn't judge american culture for not being able to deal with race problems in century's.
i just hear the news, listen to what people say, and acknowledge that there is no "easy" way to solve the problem.
same goes for about every conflict in the world.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when americans try to tackle race productively, concepts like "american", "citizen" are powerfully leveraged for minority rights. this in turn constitutes strengthening of the more universal identity. precisely the opposite for europe. further, you are also blaming the union for interference when really the lack of real unity is the obvious problem.
and whitedoge weve gone over this before. trade union is itself insufficient and perhaps overestimated for achieving solidarity but it is a step towards that end. i dont see, outside of misguided renewal of nationalism, real obstacles for why yhe eu is not fixable.
|
Doesn't mean I'm against europe, I'm for a cultural europe not a trading one. The same for the treaty, I don't understand the need for having the same legal frame in all western country.
You don't understand my point at all oneof. I'm saying a trade agreement is not a step in any direction, it's like playing with fire, because you cannot trade in a zone that has no prior cultural union. You cannot build trade before any cultural union.
|
On March 31 2015 05:20 oneofthem wrote:
when americans try to tackle race productively, concepts like "american", "citizen" are powerfully leveraged for minority rights. this in turn constitutes strengthening of the more universal identity. precisely the opposite for europe. further, you are also blaming the union for interference when really the lack of real unity is the obvious problem.
and whitedoge weve gone over this before. trade union is itself insufficient and perhaps overestimated for achieving solidarity but it is a step towards that end. i dont see, outside of misguided renewal of nationalism, real obstacles for why yhe eu is not fixable.
You cannot compare the United States to the European Union. The US is a country, the EU is basically a collection of independent sovereign nation states choosing to leave part of the decision taking in the hands of an overarching institution, as long as it does not interfere with internal affairs too much. Things like "European" and "citizen" stopped working after the Trojka imposed austerity on a couple of countries without any regard for internal democratic decision making.
The European Union can be fixed, but that road does not lead to more market liberalisation. Quite on the contary, it would lead to more regulating of out-of-control markets, such as the whole financial sector. Problems caused by deregulation are not solved by enhancing the cause of the problems a bit more.
Add to that that most people in Europe are quite aware of the current labour situation in the US: stagnant wages, profits going mainly to shareholders rather than employees, and rampant inequality. We do not want any of that stuff over here.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
dont you mean monetary union rather than trade. and thats not all eu is. it has substantial border openness and legislative institutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
