Greece 2012

[Californian Tony]

OK, I won't respond to any more post which contain "why should we pay". Now I'm sick of this mind-numbed rhetoric.

Well but it's true. You don't seem to have much respect for what belings to people (including collectively as a country). You can argue and debate what is in the best interest of all participants, but you act like Spain, Greece, whoever else have a right to German, Austrian and Finnish money. Whatever your beliefs on the Euro crisis, we are talking about sovereign countries. What you're suggesting is comparable, in principle, to saying Niger has a right to receive money from Europe because their people live in poverty (which, morally at least, is much more understandable and worthy of support.)

This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options : either we accept the idea of a common currency, with everything it entails (including eurobonds), or we definitely settle on the old-fashioned selfish nationalist logic with everything it entails (ie abandoning Euro). Both these choices are absolutely legitimate (even though I think the second would be an economic suicide). All what I want is some consistency in reasoning.

[I left.]

Even if we suppose that Greece deserves all the punishment it gets, why are the Germans imposing the same punishment on countries like Ireland and Spain which were examples of fiscal prudence until 2008?

I'm not using the word punishment at all. I don't think the Greek deserve punishment , as if they were children being sent to their rooms for misbehaving.

I think we've gotten ourselves into a project that doesn't work. The financial and economic abilities of the member states are simply too great to overcome, and we can basically say that there are contradictory interests here. It appears to me that policies that would benefit the Southern countries would invariably disadvantage the Northern ones....and the other way around.

[Beet]

There's a question as to how you measure whether a more economically prosperous entity benefits or not from being in a currency, fiscal, or political union with less prosperous entities. I mean, if you add up the total transfers to and from the US state of New York in it's history, surely transfers out of New York dwarf transfers into New York. So then does it mean New York has not benefitted from being a member of the United States? It's benefitted tremendously because it made Wall Street the nexus of the world's largest economy, and Ellis Island the gateway to a continent. Similarly, there are intangible benefits to Germany of being in the eurozone. Besides helping the competitiveness of German manufactures and the like. It makes Frankfurt the nexus of a potential economic superpower. It puts German institutions at the forefront of a continent of people much larger than Germany. Over time, this could draw power, influence, and capital into Germany itself, more than would occur if Germany was on its own. We're already seeing it. Arguably, Angela Merkel is the most powerful Chancellor in German history.

[ag]

OK, I won't respond to any more post which contain "why should we pay". Now I'm sick of this mind-numbed rhetoric.

It's not rhetoric: it's the essence of things. And you'd better understand that.

[ag]

Even if we suppose that Greece deserves all the punishment it gets, why are the Germans imposing the same punishment on countries like Ireland and Spain which were examples of fiscal prudence until 2008?

Germany is not imposing a punishment on anyone - not even on Greece. The issue is not punishment - the issue is, Greece cannot stay in euro (unless of course, everybody else leaves). If you really need a hate figure, it should not be Merkel, but Papademos - wasn't it him, who engineered Greek joining the euro back in the day?

[Californian Tony]

OK, I won't respond to any more post which contain "why should we pay". Now I'm sick of this mind-numbed rhetoric.

It's not rhetoric: it's the essence of things. And you'd better understand that.

[ag]

This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options : either we accept the idea of a common currency, with everything it entails (including eurobonds), or we definitely settle on the old-fashioned selfish nationalist logic with everything it entails (ie abandoning Euro). Both these choices are absolutely legitimate (even though I think the second would be an economic suicide). All what I want is some consistency in reasoning.

The idea of the common european currency entails not merely eurobonds, but a european government responsible to a european parliament that has direct taxation authority over the european population. Unless you are willing to share you real president with the German voters, you aren't accepting what a common currency entails.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Even if we suppose that Greece deserves all the punishment it gets, why are the Germans imposing the same punishment on countries like Ireland and Spain which were examples of fiscal prudence until 2008?

Germany is not imposing a punishment on anyone - not even on Greece.

Yes she does. Merkel said as much to Papandreou when he asked for a more lenient program back in 2010. Go read the WSJ article from a couple of days ago.

[Californian Tony]

This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options : either we accept the idea of a common currency, with everything it entails (including eurobonds), or we definitely settle on the old-fashioned selfish nationalist logic with everything it entails (ie abandoning Euro). Both these choices are absolutely legitimate (even though I think the second would be an economic suicide). All what I want is some consistency in reasoning.

The idea of the common european currency entails not merely eurobonds, but a european government responsible to a european parliament that has direct taxation authority over the european population. Unless you are willing to share you real president with the German voters, you aren't accepting what a common currency entails.

You are absolutely right, I couldn't agree more. All this is what should come next. But you can't do everything at once. The next step is Eurobonds, then something else, etc. until we have a complete European Federation.

[politicus]

This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options : either we accept the idea of a common currency, with everything it entails (including eurobonds), or we definitely settle on the old-fashioned selfish nationalist logic with everything it entails (ie abandoning Euro). Both these choices are absolutely legitimate (even though I think the second would be an economic suicide). All what I want is some consistency in reasoning.

The idea of the common European currency entails not merely eurobonds, but a European government responsible to a European parliament that has direct taxation authority over the European population. Unless you are willing to share you real president with the German voters, you aren't accepting what a common currency entails.

You are absolutely right, I couldn't agree more. All this is what should come next. But you can't do everything at once. The next step is Eurobonds, then something else, etc. until we have a complete European Federation.

But a large number of European states, especially in the east and north, doesn't want that, so you would need to split the present EU before you could get that far, which is a cumbersome process. Furthermore you would have to create a new structure for cooperation between the European Federation and the rest of the old EU (including several states from the Euro zone). I just cant see how this can be accomplished. Especially in the middle of an economic crisis.

[Californian Tony]

This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options : either we accept the idea of a common currency, with everything it entails (including eurobonds), or we definitely settle on the old-fashioned selfish nationalist logic with everything it entails (ie abandoning Euro). Both these choices are absolutely legitimate (even though I think the second would be an economic suicide). All what I want is some consistency in reasoning.

The idea of the common European currency entails not merely eurobonds, but a European government responsible to a European parliament that has direct taxation authority over the European population. Unless you are willing to share you real president with the German voters, you aren't accepting what a common currency entails.

You are absolutely right, I couldn't agree more. All this is what should come next. But you can't do everything at once. The next step is Eurobonds, then something else, etc. until we have a complete European Federation.

But a large number of European states, especially in the east and north, doesn't want that, so you would need to split the present EU before you could get that far, which is a cumbersome process. Furthermore you would have to create a new structure for cooperation between the European Federation and the rest of the old EU (including several states from the Euro zone). I just cant see how this can be accomplished. Especially in the middle of an economic crisis.

It will take time. Maybe an entire century... But I want to believe this is what we are heading to, because all the other outcomes I can think of are despairingly bleak.

[Nhoj]

Isn't one of the rules for this board, not having these kind of discussions here?

[Zuza]

For the first time since 6 May elections, one poll (Marc/Alpha) indicate ND lead with 23.1 % (SYRIZA 21 %). ND and PASOK combined would get 164 seats. Can they form coalition in case of such election result?

[You kip if you want to...]

For the first time since 6 May elections, one poll (Marc/Alpha) indicate ND lead with 23.1 % (SYRIZA 21 %). ND and PASOK combined would get 164 seats. Can they form coalition in case of such election result?

Yeah, 151 seats gets them a majority of 1.

[Sibboleth]

Isn't one of the rules for this board, not having these kind of discussions here?

It's not exactly banned, but is certainly heavily discouraged. Hard to really stop it in a thread about Greece, though.

[ag]

You are absolutely right, I couldn't agree more. All this is what should come next. But you can't do everything at once. The next step is Eurobonds, then something else, etc. until we have a complete European Federation.

Fine - if you can persuade the other Europeans But the common currency will naturally come after you have all that - not before. That's the problem: they put the cart ahead of the horse, so the whole things is imploding.

[Vasall des Midas]

Political union of that kind is dead. It's been killed, partially on purpose, over the past decade.

[Californian Tony]

Political union of that kind is dead. It's been killed, partially on purpose, over the past decade.

It has been extremely weakened, but I don't think it's dead. I can't believe the only idea that can avoid the inexorable decline of Europe is dead. If I believed that, I'd give up on politics outright.

[Iannis]

This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options : either we accept the idea of a common currency, with everything it entails (including eurobonds), or we definitely settle on the old-fashioned selfish nationalist logic with everything it entails (ie abandoning Euro). Both these choices are absolutely legitimate (even though I think the second would be an economic suicide). All what I want is some consistency in reasoning.

The idea of the common european currency entails not merely eurobonds, but a european government responsible to a european parliament that has direct taxation authority over the european population. Unless you are willing to share you real president with the German voters, you aren't accepting what a common currency entails.

You are absolutely right, I couldn't agree more. All this is what should come next. But you can't do everything at once. The next step is Eurobonds, then something else, etc. until we have a complete European Federation.

No no, it must be done in the SAME moment, or better, first a unique fiscal authorithy with a control on any expense of any state in cluding Greece, and THEN the eurobond as a consequence. This implies that laws about greek pensions, for instance, are not anymore possible, not with money of fiscal disciplined peopleo of Germany, Austria, Finland, Netherlands, Northern Italy.

[Roma Caput Mundi]

This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options : either we accept the idea of a common currency, with everything it entails (including eurobonds), or we definitely settle on the old-fashioned selfish nationalist logic with everything it entails (ie abandoning Euro). Both these choices are absolutely legitimate (even though I think the second would be an economic suicide). All what I want is some consistency in reasoning.

The idea of the common european currency entails not merely eurobonds, but a european government responsible to a european parliament that has direct taxation authority over the european population. Unless you are willing to share you real president with the German voters, you aren't accepting what a common currency entails.

You are absolutely right, I couldn't agree more. All this is what should come next. But you can't do everything at once. The next step is Eurobonds, then something else, etc. until we have a complete European Federation.

No no, it must be done in the SAME moment, or better, first a unique fiscal authorithy with a control on any expense of any state in cluding Greece, and THEN the eurobond as a consequence. This implies that laws about greek pensions, for instance, are not anymore possible, not with money of fiscal disciplined peopleo of Germany, Austria, Finland, Netherlands, Northern Italy.

Ahah yeah sure,the same "fiscal disciplined people of Northern Italy" who have ridicolous tax evasion rates.
Please...

[Iannis]

This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options : either we accept the idea of a common currency, with everything it entails (including eurobonds), or we definitely settle on the old-fashioned selfish nationalist logic with everything it entails (ie abandoning Euro). Both these choices are absolutely legitimate (even though I think the second would be an economic suicide). All what I want is some consistency in reasoning.

The idea of the common european currency entails not merely eurobonds, but a european government responsible to a european parliament that has direct taxation authority over the european population. Unless you are willing to share you real president with the German voters, you aren't accepting what a common currency entails.

You are absolutely right, I couldn't agree more. All this is what should come next. But you can't do everything at once. The next step is Eurobonds, then something else, etc. until we have a complete European Federation.

No no, it must be done in the SAME moment, or better, first a unique fiscal authorithy with a control on any expense of any state in cluding Greece, and THEN the eurobond as a consequence. This implies that laws about greek pensions, for instance, are not anymore possible, not with money of fiscal disciplined peopleo of Germany, Austria, Finland, Netherlands, Northern Italy.

Ahah yeah sure,the same "fiscal disciplined people of Northern Italy" who have ridicolous tax evasion rates.
Please...

It's one of the lowest rate in europe, the same of Germany or Finland, as hugely demonstrated many and many times

[crypto-fascist superhero]

If a "fiscal union" is created for the purpose not of clamping down on profligacy but using German/Germanic credit quality to increase it, then 3-7 years later we'd be talking about the entire-EU debt crisis.  While such an event would undoubtedly be hilarious in several ways, it would probably provoke a worldwide depression.

[Roma Caput Mundi]

This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options : either we accept the idea of a common currency, with everything it entails (including eurobonds), or we definitely settle on the old-fashioned selfish nationalist logic with everything it entails (ie abandoning Euro). Both these choices are absolutely legitimate (even though I think the second would be an economic suicide). All what I want is some consistency in reasoning.

The idea of the common european currency entails not merely eurobonds, but a european government responsible to a european parliament that has direct taxation authority over the european population. Unless you are willing to share you real president with the German voters, you aren't accepting what a common currency entails.

You are absolutely right, I couldn't agree more. All this is what should come next. But you can't do everything at once. The next step is Eurobonds, then something else, etc. until we have a complete European Federation.

No no, it must be done in the SAME moment, or better, first a unique fiscal authorithy with a control on any expense of any state in cluding Greece, and THEN the eurobond as a consequence. This implies that laws about greek pensions, for instance, are not anymore possible, not with money of fiscal disciplined peopleo of Germany, Austria, Finland, Netherlands, Northern Italy.

Ahah yeah sure,the same "fiscal disciplined people of Northern Italy" who have ridicolous tax evasion rates.
Please...

It's one of the lowest rate in europe, the same of Germany or Finland, as hugely demonstrated many and many times

[Vasall des Midas]

That image does show Northern Italy as a low evasion zone.

Of course, whoever counted? Whoever defined evasion? Heck, whoever claimed Germany was a low tax evasion country?

[Roma Caput Mundi]

That image does show Northern Italy as a low evasion zone.

Of course, whoever counted? Whoever defined evasion? Heck, whoever claimed Germany was a low tax evasion country?

If you look at the bottom,it shows how the amount of money evaded in the North is larger than that of the rest of Italy combined...