Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[mainiac]

The reason I asked the math question is because it's terribly relevant to your root misconception.  But it's cool if you dont care, I have an ignore list.

[Mr. Strange]

The reason I asked the math question is because it's terribly relevant to your root misconception.  But it's cool if you dont care, I have an ignore list.

Thanks for confirming what I said earlier.

[Antsan]

From what I've gathered from Mainiac's posts, he has a background in economics. Give up while you still can, Mr. Strange. You will not win this one.

I assume he's doing news reporting on economy for Fox, from his arguments. 
Logical failures galore and you can keep loaning money infinitely without ever having to pay it back. Definitely background in economics.

If you know that a debtor is unable to pay his debts, you write them off as losses. That's at least what my economics teacher told me about what happens normally at companies when they have a debtor who obviously is completely unable to pay, because doing anything else would be calculating with money you don't have and never will be having.
Only that Greek is Too Large To Fail so not doing that here is a nice opportunity for blackmailing others into paying for the debtor.

[Antsan]

The reason I asked the math question is because it's terribly relevant to your root misconception.  But it's cool if you dont care, I have an ignore list.

Thanks for confirming what I said earlier.

Eh; you really know that someone has lost an argument when they respond to an argument by quoting the last portion of it about being ignored for having a silly opinion, making a not-really-witty-just-an-ass remark, and completely ignoring the argument. It's fool-proof.

I have no idea whether you are being sarcastic.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/06/what-are-the-bankers-up-to/
An interesting perspective on things with the ECB from a couple years back.

It took me a while to realize that the author uses "liberals" in a way that doesn't include me.

It’s a tenet of liberalism — and a premise of the conversation Krugman is part of — that there are conflicting opinions, but not conflicting interests

Otherwise I remember something my WiSo teacher ("Wirtschaft und Solziales", "Economics and Social Stuff") told us: First public spending was cut by letting off cleaning personnel, then they were replaced by more expensive contractors from multinational companies, all as part of that one deal they did.

We have drawn the line in the wrong place, leaving too many policy decisions in the realm of politics and too few in the realm of technocracy. . . . the argument for the Fed’s independence applies just as forcefully to many other areas of government policy. Many policy decisions require complex technical judgments and have consequences that stretch into the distant future. Think of decisions on health policy (should we spend more on cancer or aids research?), tax policy (should we reduce taxes on capital gains?), or environmental policy (how should we cope with damage to the ozone layer?). Yet in such cases, elected politicians make the key decisions. Why should monetary policy be different? . . . The justification for central bank independence is valid. Perhaps the model should be extended to other arenas. . . . The tax system would surely be simpler, fairer, and more efficient if . . . left to an independent technical body like the Federal Reserve rather than to congressional committees.

What the fuck. If that actually is some kind of popular opinion, how can people not see this as a direct attack on democracy?

[CaptainMcClellan]

From what I've gathered from Mainiac's posts, he has a background in economics. Give up while you still can, Mr. Strange. You will not win this one.

I assume he's doing news reporting on economy for Fox, from his arguments. 
Logical failures galore and you can keep loaning money infinitely without ever having to pay it back. Definitely background in economics.

If you know that a debtor is unable to pay his debts, you write them off as losses. That's at least what my economics teacher told me about what happens normally at companies when they have a debtor who obviously is completely unable to pay, because doing anything else would be calculating with money you don't have and never will be having.
Only that Greek is Too Large To Fail so not doing that here is a nice opportunity for blackmailing others into paying for the debtor.

So, I'll admit I haven't been paying the best of attentions, but especially with this take on it, I gotta ask: Is Europe setting itself up to be another USA? (Well at least a more multicultural clone thereof... ;p ) It seems like the EU is making a lot of similar mistakes based on what I've read here and also by what they want to do in their setup.

[Sheb]

Depend on what you mean by "another USA" really.

[mainiac]

Only that Greek is Too Large To Fail so not doing that here is a nice opportunity for blackmailing others into paying for the debtor.

Blackmail is such a subjective term.  Music pirates blackmailed the music companies so effectively that pretty much every popular song is on youtube these days, courtesy of the music companies, and we still think it's the music companies that are stubborn assholes.  Every corporate contract everywhere is underwritten by bankruptcy law which is legal blackmail and most of the time that's a good thing (though some companies abuse it in the way that Donald Trump epitomizes).

Mostly we dont care about blackmail, we care about moral hazard.  Is letting someone benefit from their intransigence setting up too much of a perverse incentive?  It's a good thing that bankruptcy law codifies the ability to blackmail people, it's a bad thing that it does it in a way that Donald Trump can abuse.

[Helgoland]

Depend on what you mean by "another USA" really.

In any meaningful sense I'd say no - just like Germany's political system is not a copy of France's or England's.

[misko27]

(Well at least a more multicultural clone thereof... ;p )

The very existence of this sentence amuses and confuses me. More multi-cultural? Europe is literally miles away from where America or Canada are on Immigration and integration. Of course, you would expect this of two nations of immigrants.

Depend on what you mean by "another USA" really.

In any meaningful sense I'd say no - just like Germany's political system is not a copy of France's or England's.

Yes. For all the panicking I've seen about Brussels gaining too much power, it's worth noting that the EU is still more divided in virtually every way then the US ever was, even during the Articles of Confederation period. Moreover, there are more traditional and historical traditions then in the US, and in many ways those divisions are deeper and more intractable. The only worthwhile comparison worth making is with regards to the currency union, and how the Fed would approach similar problems vs. how Europe has tried to do so.

[Sheb]

Multicultural is not just a code word for integration if immigrants you know. If you consider the EU a country, it has much more diversity of cultures than the US, which is what I guess McClellan mean. A Bulgarian and a Scot have less in common (starting with language) than a New Yorker and a Dakotan.

[smjjames]

Multicultural is not just a code word for integration if immigrants you know. If you consider the EU a country, it has much more diversity of cultures than the US, which is what I guess McClellan mean. A Bulgarian and a Scot have less in common (starting with language) than a New Yorker and a Dakotan.

That's mainly because they haven't had much time to diverge regionally, plus theres this thing called 'National Identity.

Still though, before you denounce the US as being culturally shallow, theres quite a bit of regional diversity.

I do see your point, but you're comparing Guava (a new world fruit) and Apples (an old world fruit) here.

[SirQuiamus]

ECB: "Greece really doesn't need a haircut – they're just dandy."

Olli 'Mr Austerity' Rehn: "Emergency funding is a no-no; it would delay implementing reforms and make lazy people even lazier."

German Finance Ministry: "No human rights issues are being ignored."


Have I slipped into a parallel universe where everyone – I mean absolutely everyone in the EU hierarchy is a reality-intolerant fanatic? Or was that always the case, and the Euroskeptics had it right all along?

...

Bailout vote results are in by 22:00 GMT. My money is on 'No' followed by Grexit, although the outcome hardly matters since that money will soon be worthless anyway.

[Mr. Strange]

If you know that a debtor is unable to pay his debts, you write them off as losses. That's at least what my economics teacher told me about what happens normally at companies when they have a debtor who obviously is completely unable to pay, because doing anything else would be calculating with money you don't have and never will be having.
Only that Greek is Too Large To Fail so not doing that here is a nice opportunity for blackmailing others into paying for the debtor.

As far as I've understood, between credit downgrading and EU intervention, that's exactly what happened. Previous creditors didn't believe Greece couldn't pay them back and didn't want to renew their loans, while risk investors counted on to get their money back from EU bailouts and loaned what Greece needed, with high interest. Now EU and Greece are stuck arguing how to divide cleaning up the mess.

Have I slipped into a parallel universe where everyone – I mean absolutely everyone in the EU hierarchy is a reality-intolerant fanatic? Or was that always the case, and the Euroskeptics had it right all along?

First part is right. Eurosceptics live in their own reality-intolerant bubble that doesn't overlap with pro-EU bubble. Both are equally removed from reality.

[alway]

We have drawn the line in the wrong place, leaving too many policy decisions in the realm of politics and too few in the realm of technocracy. . . . the argument for the Fed’s independence applies just as forcefully to many other areas of government policy. Many policy decisions require complex technical judgments and have consequences that stretch into the distant future. Think of decisions on health policy (should we spend more on cancer or aids research?), tax policy (should we reduce taxes on capital gains?), or environmental policy (how should we cope with damage to the ozone layer?). Yet in such cases, elected politicians make the key decisions. Why should monetary policy be different? . . . The justification for central bank independence is valid. Perhaps the model should be extended to other arenas. . . . The tax system would surely be simpler, fairer, and more efficient if . . . left to an independent technical body like the Federal Reserve rather than to congressional committees.

What the fuck. If that actually is some kind of popular opinion, how can people not see this as a direct attack on democracy?

From the latest "deal." http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/13/greece-debt-agreement-eurozone-summit-statement

in line with the Greek government ambitions, to modernise and significantly strengthen the Greek administration, and to put in place a programme, under the auspices of the European Commission, for capacity-building and de-politicizing the Greek administration.

on labour markets, undertake rigorous reviews of collective bargaining, industrial action and collective dismissals in line with the timetable and the approach agreed with the institutions. [In addition, the Greek authorities shall modernize the legislative framework for collective dismissals, in line with best practice]. On the basis of these reviews, labour market policies should be aligned with international and European best practices, and should not involve a return to past policy settings which are not compatible with the goals of promoting sustainable and inclusive growth;

to fully normalise working methods with the institutions, including the necessary work on the ground in Athens, to improve programme implementation and monitoring. The government needs to consult and agree with the institutions on all draft legislation in relevant areas with adequate time before submitting it for public consultation or to Parliament.

So basically, only by not reading it. Those aren't "economic reforms," those read like a how-to guide on setting up a puppet government.

[Helgoland]

IIRC 'depolitizising the administration' refers to curbing the practice of giving people administrative posts because of their party allegiance. Administration != government.
The second quote describes an economic reform par excellence, and the third does not make clear whether it just applies to economic policy/reforms or to everything. The latter would indeed be bad, but the former is fairly understandable, considering the levels of mistrust reached during the negotiations.