|
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 May 30 2017 19:50 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 19:38 Sbrubbles wrote:On May 30 2017 15:38 Velr wrote:
I'm just astouned that so many of you still read and even respond to him. I'm not. In fact, in every internet setting I've been in, the more outlandish the claim, the more likely it is to elicit a response. Outlandish by the standards of the setting, though. I mean to say, this thread is populated by people who range from the centre left to the far left and not much else. If you say something that is common sense you elicit a response here. The obvious reality in this case is that Germany is not evil, but it has an inappropriate amount of power on the continent and states inevitably use their power to their own benefit. Another point that seems obvious to me is that the youth are extremely complacent and assume things can't go wrong. There is no purpose for a European military, and when a political body of diminishing relevance starts to push for more military, that ought to raise some eyebrows.
You know what would be common sense? To back up a claim with evidence.
You know, like look at the facts who backs whom in the EU and realize that the strongest axis has been Italy-Spain-France in the past years. Germany is simply the country who is abusing the economical rules that everyone agreed to the hardest in their favor. Which you may dislike as I do, but really it's the idiot politicians that always create frameworks based on some minimum consensus and then start bitching if someone plays the optimum-national strategy that does not take into account the best interest for all people of Europe.
It's got nothing to do with Germany using the EU, it's the others not using it and not binding each other to more solidary rules.
|
An article I posted in the us thread by the German newspaper die Zeit harped on the 17 types of tanks used in the European armies. And x types of planes and so on, you get the picture.
Bottom line was that a cohesive cooperation can reduce r&d and maintenance costs of we work closer on that front.
That is something we could aim for but that would bring us farther from 2%on the long run.
I'm on mobile so I won't link it here again for now.
But it was available in English.
|
Germany, the biggest net contributor to the EU budget (average 9 bil. euro per year over 2007-2013) is abusing the economical rules to ... be able to give the others more money?
|
Germany due to having economical problems in the 90ies/early 00 lowered its wages.
Others didn't. Now Germany stands strong economically, with very "questionable" side effects on its unskilled labourforce, and others bitch about it while, for imho good reasons, not being able/willing to follow the same path.
You can solve this by having more EU (Eurozone) or way less of it... But atm no one is happy.
|
On May 30 2017 20:14 Artisreal wrote:
An article I posted in the us thread by the German newspaper die Zeit harped on the 17 types of tanks used in the European armies. And x types of planes and so on, you get the picture.
Bottom line was that a cohesive cooperation can reduce r&d and maintenance costs of we work closer on that front.
That is something we could aim for but that would bring us farther from 2%on the long run.
I'm on mobile so I won't link it here again for now.
But it was available in English.
Honestly, i give 0 fucks about the 2%. Why have some random number determine how much we should spend on the military. Figure out how much we need, and spend that much. Don't randomly spend money just to meet a target that only Trump seems to care about anyways.
|
On May 30 2017 19:50 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 19:38 Sbrubbles wrote:On May 30 2017 15:38 Velr wrote:
I'm just astouned that so many of you still read and even respond to him. I'm not. In fact, in every internet setting I've been in, the more outlandish the claim, the more likely it is to elicit a response. Outlandish by the standards of the setting, though. I mean to say, this thread is populated by people who range from the centre left to the far left and not much else. If you say something that is common sense you elicit a response here. The obvious reality in this case is that Germany is not evil, but it has an inappropriate amount of power on the continent and states inevitably use their power to their own benefit. Another point that seems obvious to me is that the youth are extremely complacent and assume things can't go wrong. There is no purpose for a European military, and when a political body of diminishing relevance starts to push for more military, that ought to raise some eyebrows.
I did not mention any one of his specific claims. My quip was on the unlikelyhood of a large enough group of people to leave outlandish arguments unanswered.
|
On May 30 2017 20:26 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 20:14 Artisreal wrote:
An article I posted in the us thread by the German newspaper die Zeit harped on the 17 types of tanks used in the European armies. And x types of planes and so on, you get the picture.
Bottom line was that a cohesive cooperation can reduce r&d and maintenance costs of we work closer on that front.
That is something we could aim for but that would bring us farther from 2%on the long run.
I'm on mobile so I won't link it here again for now.
But it was available in English. Honestly, i give 0 fucks about the 2%. Why have some random number determine how much we should spend on the military. Figure out how much we need, and spend that much. Don't randomly spend money just to meet a target that only Trump seems to care about anyways.
Let alone that depending on Country "Military spending" means very diffrent things.
Has the military domestic Jobs and if how many and how extensive?
Is it a professional, a militia or a mixed system?
Does your country border the Sea?
Has your country former colonies/big interests in places half a world away?
...
On top of that even when all things would be equal, just assigning a random number that you have to achieve is stupid no matter what.
|
|
|
Can we just agree that not every nation wants to win the game of thrones? The most ridiculous statement must be Germany's current situation resembling it's pre WW1 situation. You guys play too much Hearts of Iron...
I don't believe there will be a European Army simply because of the 21 different tanks. The european countries have a lot of weapon manufacturers and they would be quite sad if they couldn't all profit from national armies anymore.
|
On May 30 2017 20:26 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 20:14 Artisreal wrote:
An article I posted in the us thread by the German newspaper die Zeit harped on the 17 types of tanks used in the European armies. And x types of planes and so on, you get the picture.
Bottom line was that a cohesive cooperation can reduce r&d and maintenance costs of we work closer on that front.
That is something we could aim for but that would bring us farther from 2%on the long run.
I'm on mobile so I won't link it here again for now.
But it was available in English. Honestly, i give 0 fucks about the 2%. Why have some random number determine how much we should spend on the military. Figure out how much we need, and spend that much. Don't randomly spend money just to meet a target that only Trump seems to care about anyways.
Well that's what our leaders agreed to during the 2014 summit in the wake of the Russian agression in Ukraine.
Though I have read conflicting statements whethers it's an actual GOAL or a mere GUIDELINE.
|
On May 30 2017 20:15 opisska wrote:
Germany, the biggest net contributor to the EU budget (average 9 bil. euro per year over 2007-2013) is abusing the economical rules to ... be able to give the others more money?
Holding back wages and forcing people to take up jobs for extreme low wages has made it possible to produce for cheaper prices than comparable members in the same fields, while selling the goods their own people couldn't afford with those wages abroad, giving Germany a huge economic boost on the cost of other member states.
The German industry has basically sucked up huge parts of Italian, Greece, Spanish production capacities, countries that rose their wages way over average (with Germany being the biggest counterweight in that Eurozone average). Even countries like France, which had a very reasonable, very average increase in wages is struggling hard to have any growth because due to European rules it's just stupid not to produce in Germany and sell in France.
Problem being that you can't do that in every country. If all countries acted like this, there wouldn't be enough consumers in Europe and in the end everyone would lose out again, with the general question also being whether the German people are actually profitting from this, beyond nationalistic feelings about good economic data which is mainly enrichening a few.
|
On May 30 2017 20:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 20:15 opisska wrote:
Germany, the biggest net contributor to the EU budget (average 9 bil. euro per year over 2007-2013) is abusing the economical rules to ... be able to give the others more money? Holding back wages and forcing people to take up jobs for extreme low wages has made it possible to produce for cheaper prices than comparable members in the same fields, while selling the goods their own people couldn't afford with those wages abroad, giving Germany a huge economic boost on the cost of other member states. The German industry has basically sucked up huge parts of Italian, Greece, Spanish production capacities, countries that rose their wages way over average (with Germany being the biggest counterweight in that Eurozone average). Even countries like France, which had a very reasonable, very average increase in wages is struggling hard to have any growth because due to European rules it's just stupid not to produce in Germany and sell in France. Problem being that you can't do that in every country. If all countries acted like this, there wouldn't be enough consumers in Europe and in the end everyone would lose out again, with the general question also being whether the German people are actually profitting from this, beyond nationalistic feelings about good economic data which is mainly enrichening a few.
Isn't the actual problem in the fact - which you actually acknowledged in part - that the "affected countries", that is Italy, Greece and Spain have increased the wage too much compared to their actual productivity? I furthemore am not really sure that you "can't do it in every country", because as long as the ecosystem is mostly closed (which EU as a whole is to a very large extend, as the vast majority of trade is within EU countries), when everyone lowers wages, prices are lowered as well. I know that the current economic lingo treats deflation as the worst kind of hell, but I am also not sure that the make-believe growth the South bought into (which then caused the beloved crisis) has brought anyone anything good beyond temporary popularity points in the elections.
I understand that it is a problem when Germany acts differently than it was agreed, that much is clear, however I still find it hard to believe that it's actually hurting the South, that is that they would be worse off isolated. Surely, they would be better off if Germans spent all their money buying their products, but that's not really the fair comparison here.
|
On May 30 2017 20:51 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 20:40 Big J wrote:On May 30 2017 20:15 opisska wrote:
Germany, the biggest net contributor to the EU budget (average 9 bil. euro per year over 2007-2013) is abusing the economical rules to ... be able to give the others more money? Holding back wages and forcing people to take up jobs for extreme low wages has made it possible to produce for cheaper prices than comparable members in the same fields, while selling the goods their own people couldn't afford with those wages abroad, giving Germany a huge economic boost on the cost of other member states. The German industry has basically sucked up huge parts of Italian, Greece, Spanish production capacities, countries that rose their wages way over average (with Germany being the biggest counterweight in that Eurozone average). Even countries like France, which had a very reasonable, very average increase in wages is struggling hard to have any growth because due to European rules it's just stupid not to produce in Germany and sell in France. Problem being that you can't do that in every country. If all countries acted like this, there wouldn't be enough consumers in Europe and in the end everyone would lose out again, with the general question also being whether the German people are actually profitting from this, beyond nationalistic feelings about good economic data which is mainly enrichening a few. Isn't the actual problem in the fact - which you actually acknowledged in part - that the "affected countries", that is Italy, Greece and Spain have increased the wage too much compared to their actual productivity? I furthemore am not really sure that you "can't do it in every country", because as long as the ecosystem is mostly closed (which EU as a whole is to a very large extend, as the vast majority of trade is within EU countries), when everyone lowers wages, prices are lowered as well. I know that the current economic lingo treats deflation as the worst kind of hell, but I am also not sure that the make-believe growth the South bought into (which then caused the beloved crisis) has brought anyone anything good beyond temporary popularity points in the elections. I understand that it is a problem when Germany acts differently than it was agreed, that much is clear, however I still find it hard to believe that it's actually hurting the South, that is that they would be worse off isolated. Surely, they would be better off if Germans spent all their money buying their products, but that's not really the fair comparison here.
I fully acknowledge the part about certain Southern countries. But increasing too little is just as bad as increasing too much, that's what is not communicated well in Europe. But in essence we have inflation targets, which is more or less the German one from before the Euro, 1.9%. Overall Europe hit that target, but individually the states have been heavily drifting apart. France hit the target and is not well off, that's how you see that Germany is hitting even those who just played according to the rules, not just the ones who overdid it.
The whole point of having this European subvention system is, that in an economic zone and in particular a currency zone, things like this happen.
The 9 billions aren't much, Vienna is probably paying more in the Austrian system to weaker Austrian regions than all of Germany is paying within the Eurozone to weaker ones, given it's asymetric success.
Well, what's most likely to happen is that the Eurozone started exporting more and employment outside of Germany growing, maybe at the cost of German employment. Prices probably wouldn't fall. Small enterprises can't afford that and big enterprises would lobby for more trade, rather than lowering prices within europe. As long as you can't make owners pay more wages overall it's always only going to be a trade employment for wages or vis-verca.
|
Big J, wouldn't the other side of the coin could be that German companies aren't paying their workers enough for their productivity, thus slanting the Eurozone?
|
On May 30 2017 19:32 Simberto wrote:
If 37% want a stronger army (source please) that also means that 63% don't want one. Which is an amazingly large majority.
And von der Leyen did not say that she wants a larger army. She says that she wants a european army. That does not necessarily mean "more". It just means "organizing things on the european level as opposed to on a national level" i remembered http://www.dw.com/en/germans-voice-us-frustrations-in-policy-poll/a-17763383 from a while ago ![[image loading]](http://www.dw.com/image/17763041_401.gif)
with Trump winning, it could've gotten higher; i'm betting it's a little over 40% by now. add to that the serious drop in % of germans(from 34% to 9%) that see themselves not as losing the war(second one) but as being liberated by the allies from the nazis, you realize things are starting to move in a certain direction.
rest of your post looks semantic-ish. you can make that argument sure, but i like calling it like it is: the goal of an army is to defend <interests>. in which scenario would said EU army defend the interests of say, Hungary?. lets be real here. it would be Germany(in Europe/Middle East/Caucasus region) and sometimes France(in Africa).
|
To continue your line of reasoning xM)Z what would be the interests to which a German army would defend? Why it would be Germany itself, and her political, economic and military alliances that also protects Germany. In recent times it is actually fairly obvious what that is, as there is a fairly large and nearby country that has no qualms about using unconventional warfare to achieve their own aims, including using special forces, cyberwarfare and covert invasion to destabilize countries that are percieved to acting against her interests. No I'm not talking about UK or France. The real question is in what shape would such military spending entail? Afterall the German military seems to be focused on humanitarian capacity than actual military capacity. For instance, their new warships being built are actually giant rescue and supply ships with a veneer of military capability.
|
On May 30 2017 22:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Big J, wouldn't the other side of the coin could be that German companies aren't paying their workers enough for their productivity, thus slanting the Eurozone?
Yes. Pretty much. Though it's not just wages, it's all sorts of social and pension payments of employers that were reduced to make labor cheaper, i.e. cuts in the purchasing power for everyone that's not working (anymore).
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n69nxcq.png)
(Taken from Heiner Flassbeck, a German economist)
|
On May 30 2017 22:26 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 19:32 Simberto wrote:
If 37% want a stronger army (source please) that also means that 63% don't want one. Which is an amazingly large majority.
And von der Leyen did not say that she wants a larger army. She says that she wants a european army. That does not necessarily mean "more". It just means "organizing things on the european level as opposed to on a national level" i remembered http://www.dw.com/en/germans-voice-us-frustrations-in-policy-poll/a-17763383 from a while ago + Show Spoiler +with Trump winning, it could've gotten higher; i'm betting it's a little over 40% by now. add to that the serious drop in % of germans(from 34% to 9%) that see themselves not as losing the war(second one) but as being liberated by the allies from the nazis, you realize things are starting to move in a certain direction. rest of your post looks semantic-ish. you can make that argument sure, but i like calling it like it is: the goal of an army is to defend <interests>. in which scenario would said EU army defend the interests of say, Hungary?. lets be real here. it would be Germany(in Europe/Middle East/Caucasus region) and sometimes France(in Africa).
Your source please, I can't believe that. That would be horrible.
|
On May 30 2017 22:44 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 22:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Big J, wouldn't the other side of the coin could be that German companies aren't paying their workers enough for their productivity, thus slanting the Eurozone? Yes. Pretty much. Though it's not just wages, it's all sorts of social and pension payments of employers that were reduced to make labor cheaper, i.e. cuts in the purchasing power for everyone that's not working (anymore). + Show Spoiler + (Taken from Heiner Flassbeck, a German economist)
Nice graph. Piketty has this one:
+ Show Spoiler +
Domestic consumption and investment in % of GDP
France produces 100, domestic consumption + investment 102
Germany produces 100, domestic consumption + investment 92
|
On May 30 2017 22:26 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 19:32 Simberto wrote:
If 37% want a stronger army (source please) that also means that 63% don't want one. Which is an amazingly large majority.
And von der Leyen did not say that she wants a larger army. She says that she wants a european army. That does not necessarily mean "more". It just means "organizing things on the european level as opposed to on a national level" i remembered http://www.dw.com/en/germans-voice-us-frustrations-in-policy-poll/a-17763383 from a while ago with Trump winning, it could've gotten higher; i'm betting it's a little over 40% by now. add to that the serious drop in % of germans(from 34% to 9%) that see themselves not as losing the war(second one) but as being liberated by the allies from the nazis, you realize things are starting to move in a certain direction. rest of your post looks semantic-ish. you can make that argument sure, but i like calling it like it is: the goal of an army is to defend <interests>. in which scenario would said EU army defend the interests of say, Hungary?. lets be real here. it would be Germany(in Europe/Middle East/Caucasus region) and sometimes France(in Africa).
Uh, am i stupid or are you completely miquoting that poll? In 2014, 37% of Germans voiced that Germany should get more involved. First, that is something entirely different from saying the country should get a bigger army. Second, that went down from 62%. Third if you read the entire article you linked, they specifically claim that they want to keep peace in the world and oppose fighting wars for economical gain.
Taking that article and using it as proof for increased german desires for greatness is either lazy or dishonest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/11/03/opinion/110313krugman1/110313krugman1-blog480.png)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VPgEM1sX3Zo/VbUQDQax9dI/AAAAAAAAESk/GcK1uEXElL0/s1600/21-balance-paiements-ez.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/981/files/2016/12/A-01-Target2-graph-ecb-data-large.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2017/01/PikettyBlogLeMonde03012017DataF1F9FR_Page_9-1-900x637.jpg)
