Politics Future of Greece

[Angela]

Anxhela, I am sorry, but you are wrong about Greek economy. Probably you don't have information. In the past in Greece were a lot of jobs to do. Many Albanian emigrants worked there, because the Greeks refused to work . I am very informed about the Greek economy. I know from my friends working there, that Greeks don't like to work and they have a high standard of life. Why Greeks should have big pensions. All this anti German propaganda is disgusting. Germans are really hardworking people. Greece is fooling around with all Europe. I am sorry for my words but I am trying to be sincere . Thei need to reduce in maximum their pensions. To bring at 70 their pension age . To reduce in maximum their military budget. To reduce the administration salaries. And in the end they should sell some of their islands [emoji57]. Angela, I respect your opinion on the other threads, but here you are wrong, very wrong.


[emoji629]

Maybe you haven't read the whole thread. You certainly haven't read any of the articles to which I linked.

I excoriated the Tsipras government and him personally. I think I may have unwittingly offended some members by calling leftist economics "loony" or silly, but that's what I believe and it slipped out. I apologize for any offense.

If anything, I am a fiscal conservative. I believe that Greece should privatize its industries, employers should have the power to fire unproductive workers, incentives should be put in place to attract investment, and on and on. Also, the gamesmanship engaged in by Tsipras and his government without any real plan for an exit strategy was criminal, as I repeatedly said.

However, I have always thought, and now think, that the Eurozone was poorly conceived and flawed, and that countries would surrender their sovereignty to it, which would eventually mean surrendering their sovereignty to banks and financial institutions, at their peril. I also have always thought, and now think, that certain countries would be in better shape had they retained their own currencies. They would have been in much better shape had they not only retained their own currencies, but also instituted market oriented reforms.

This brings us to the debt itself. There has been double dealing and dishonesty on all sides from the very beginning. The Greek government was dishonest in hiding liabilities in order to meet entrance requirements. The investment bank was dishonest in helping them do it. The EU officials were dishonest in knowing it and looking the other way, and I don't buy that it was all because they didn't want Greece to fall into the Russian sphere. They wanted it because its always been about markets and flooding these countries with the goods produced by certain nations. Are some Europeans so deluded by the propaganda that they don't see it?

There's also a whole debate among economists as to what to do when nations go into debt. Yes, spending has to be brought under control, but the most important thing is to encourage growth, because the deficits would start to melt away in the face of growth. How much "austerity" is too much and will not only retard growth, but, perhaps, plunge a country into a depression? It's a delicate balancing act, and frankly I believe the Eurozone leaders have failed in this regard. Certainly, as has also been pointed out by numerous economists, lowering the interest rate and extending the payment period has NEVER worked. Piling more debt on top of the existing debt means that a country, in this case Greece, will never be able to pay it back. The face amount has to be reduced. I've yet to see any independent economist who doesn't advocate that.

I honestly don't totally understand what is going on in the minds of the leaders of the EU. I tend to decry and mock conspiracy theorists, but I am starting to wonder. This isn't sound business. Capitalism isn't a morality play. It's about getting the best deal. It's about keeping your eye on the ball, not plundering and punishing an entire country of human beings, for God's sake. .

I'm not even going to address all the B.S. in the founding documents of the Eurozone about European unity and helping one another grow as a community of nations. That was obviously pablum for the masses. That's never what it was about. That anyone could still believe that after this weekend is a testimony to ignorance, in my opinion, and the power of stereotypes and propaganda.

I sincerely hope that the British, for whom I have admiration, take heed and vote no in the coming referendum. The best thing for certain countries would be to negotiate an orderly exit from the Euro and institute more and deeper market reforms. Unfortunately, I don't think they have the ***** to do the first or the knowledge of how to manage an economy to do the second. If Eurozone populations think that there was or is now any real desire to create a "United States" of Europe, I think you're living in la la land.

Speaking of stereotypes and propaganda...I find it amusing in a rather grim way that you would be dealing in stereotypes when your own country can be and has been so easily stereotyped.

Will Europeans ever be able to look at any single phenomenon, economic, political, cultural whatever, without doing so through the prism of idiotic tribal allegiances and hostilities? These are the times I'm glad my parents took me the ****out of Europe.
As for my posts here on this thread and everywhere else, I try to examine every topic and issue with as much information as I can gather, and as much reason as I can muster, and, to the best of my ability, I try to divorce myself of any ethnic or personal considerations when I'm discussing history or genetics, or, in this case, economics. That's the way I was trained personally and professionally. It doesn't mean I'm always right, of course.

 

[LeBrok]

Maybe you haven't read the whole thread. You certainly haven't read any of the articles to which I linked.

I excoriated the Tsipras government and him personally. I think I may have unwittingly offended some members by calling leftist economics "loony" or silly, but that's what I believe and it slipped out. I apologize for any offense.

If anything, I am a fiscal conservative. I believe that Greece should privatize its industries, employers should have the power to fire unproductive workers, incentives should be put in place to attract investment, and on and on. Also, the gamesmanship engaged in by Tsipras and his government without any real plan for an exit strategy was criminal, as I repeatedly said.

However, I have always thought, and now think, that the Eurozone was poorly conceived and flawed, and that countries would surrender their sovereignty to it, which would eventually mean surrendering their sovereignty to banks and financial institutions, at their peril. I also have always thought, and now think, that certain countries would be in better shape had they retained their own currencies. They would have been in much better shape had they not only retained their own currencies, but also instituted market oriented reforms.

This brings us to the debt itself. There has been double dealing and dishonesty on all sides from the very beginning. The Greek government was dishonest in hiding liabilities in order to meet entrance requirements. The investment bank was dishonest in helping them do it. The EU officials were dishonest in knowing it and looking the other way, and I don't buy that it was all because they didn't want Greece to fall into the Russian sphere. They wanted it because its always been about markets and flooding these countries with the goods produced by certain nations. Are some Europeans so deluded by the propaganda that they don't see it?

There's also a whole debate among economists as to what to do when nations go into debt. Yes, spending has to be brought under control, but the most important thing is to encourage growth, because the deficits would start to melt away in the face of growth. How much "austerity" is too much and will not only retard growth, but, perhaps, plunge a country into a depression? It's a delicate balancing act, and frankly I believe the Eurozone leaders have failed in this regard. Certainly, as has also been pointed out by numerous economists, lowering the interest rate and extending the payment period has NEVER worked. Piling more debt on top of the existing debt means that a country, in this case Greece, will never be able to pay it back. The face amount has to be reduced. I've yet to see any independent economist who doesn't advocate that.

I honestly don't totally understand what is going on in the minds of the leaders of the EU. I tend to decry and mock conspiracy theorists, but I am starting to wonder. This isn't sound business. Capitalism isn't a morality play. It's about getting the best deal. It's about keeping your eye on the ball, not plundering and punishing an entire country of human beings, for God's sake. .

I'm not even going to address all the B.S. in the founding documents of the Eurozone about European unity and helping one another grow as a community of nations. That was obviously pablum for the masses. That's never what it was about. That anyone could still believe that after this weekend is a testimony to ignorance, in my opinion, and the power of stereotypes and propaganda.

I sincerely hope that the British, for whom I have admiration, take heed and vote no in the coming referendum. The best thing for certain countries would be to negotiate an orderly exit from the Euro and institute more and deeper market reforms. Unfortunately, I don't think they have the ***** to do the first or the knowledge of how to manage an economy to do the second. If Eurozone populations think that there was or is now any real desire to create a "United States" of Europe, I think you're living in la la land.

Speaking of stereotypes and propaganda...I find it amusing in a rather grim way that you would be dealing in stereotypes when your own country can be and has been so easily stereotyped.

Will Europeans ever be able to look at any single phenomenon, economic, political, cultural whatever, without doing so through the prism of idiotic tribal allegiances and hostilities? These are the times I'm glad my parents took me the ****out of Europe.
As for my posts here on this thread and everywhere else, I try to examine every topic and issue with as much information as I can gather, and as much reason as I can muster, and, to the best of my ability, I try to divorce myself of any ethnic or personal considerations when I'm discussing history or genetics, or, in this case, economics. That's the way I was trained personally and professionally. It doesn't mean I'm always right, of course.

Great summary Angela and I agree with most. Except perhaps disintegrating EU. In this highlighted instance I would like to go back to situation of Detroit in US. Would you agree that the best solution for Detroit would be seceding from US Union, becoming independent and issue own currency. After all Detroit can complain that it didn't receive adequate help from the Union to protect against bankruptcy. State of Illinois has 320 billion dollars debt with population comparable to Greece. Should they think about quitting the Union, or anyone in big financial trouble?

 

[Angela]

Great summary Angela and I agree with most. Except perhaps disintegrating EU. In this highlighted instance I would like to go back to situation of Detroit in US. Would you agree that the best solution for Detroit would be seceding from US Union, becoming independent and issue own currency. After all Detroit can complain that it didn't receive adequate help from the Union to protect against bankruptcy. State of Illinois has 320 billion dollars debt with population comparable to Greece. Should they think about quitting the Union, or anyone in big financial trouble?

There's no need to leave the union, because the U.S. government will bail them out one way or another. That's the difference between a real "union" and the pretend one in Europe. These are the differences between the two systems. (Rather than just rephrasing, I'll just quote. )

"Common banking policies. US banks are regulated at the federal level, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees banks in all 50 states. American regulators don't allow a bank in one state to hold too much of that state's debt. As a result, American states aren't vulnerable to local bank failures the way European countries are. A string of bank failures in Texas would mostly be a problem for the US government, not the government of Texas. Conversely, if an American state has a fiscal crisis, consumers don't need to worry that this will imperil the soundness of local banks.

Common fiscal policies. In the United States, the federal government is responsible for a large share of overall government spending. That's not true in Europe, where the European Union's budget is much smaller than the combined budgets of EU member nations. This means that states are not as vulnerable to macroeconomic swings as European nations are.

"Retirees in Florida are paid out of the US Social Security system, not the Florida social security system "So if Florida gets into trouble, the retirees won't lose their benefits."

America's common tax and spending policies help to even out differences in states' economies. When a state is booming, the federal government collects more tax revenue from residents and businesses there. At the same time, demand for some government benefits declines. When a state's economy does poorly, the opposite occurs: tax revenue falls and federal benefit payments increase. These financial flows help to prevent the kind of extreme economic divergence we see in Europe right now.


A common labor market: When some parts of the US have higher unemployment rates than others, people move to states where opportunities are better. Once again, this prevents extreme differences between state unemployment rates, contributing to an integrated national economy.

In theory, all those unemployed Greek people could move to Germany in search of work. But language and cultural barriers make that difficult in practice, and few Greek people have done so.

The euro could work with "ever closer union" — but that won't be easy

The currency's problems are by no means limited to Greece. Other countries in the Southern Europe, including Spain, Italy, and Portugal, have been suffering through years of unnecessarily high unemployment due in part to ECB policies.

And similar problems are going to crop up every time the continent experiences an economic downturn. The strongest economies will lobby against strong stimulus due to inflation fears, which will push weaker economies into unnecessarily long and severe recessions. Because most other European countries don't have Greek levels of debt, this may never produce a Greek-style financial crisis. But years of unnecessarily high unemployment is a humanitarian disaster in its own right.

The best way to avoid this outcome is the one we use in the United States: deeply integrate the economies of Eurozone nations so that a sharp divergence between European countries becomes impossible.


The EU has been working on proposals to better integrate the European banking system, though it's a long way from completing the job.

Developing a set of EU-wide taxing and spending policies — the counterparts to the US income tax and federally-funded benefits such as Social Security and Medicaid — will be a much bigger challenge. Every year, taxpayers in rich US states effectively subsidize federal benefits for people in poorer states; taxpayers in rich European countries are understandably wary of adopting a similar set of policies in Europe.

True labor market integration will be the hardest challenge of all, because here the problems are about language and culture more than government policy. The EU isn't going to have a shared language any time soon, so workers may never move around the EU as freely as they move around the US today.

But progress toward closer union has been slow, and there's reason to doubt whether it will ever be achieved. And if a more integrated Europe is out of reach, then the euro is a terrible idea that will impose needless suffering on millions of people for years to come. "

Conclusion: As long as the European Union remains a loose confederation of independent nations, the euro will be an economic menace

There is no way I believe that Germany or many other Euro countries really want the kind of union where when Detroit defaults, for example, the federal taxpayers still foot the bill so that the SSA benefits still get paid, the state still gives out food stamps, eventually the state or federal government come in and build everything up again. They want the benefits, but not the burdens.

We actually had many of the same kind of problems during the days of the Articles of Confederation, but they proved unworkable just like the Euro is unworkable, and so they were scrapped, and the founders drafted the Constitution of the United States, which still provides for some local controls but has an overlay of common banking, fiscal and labor policy on top of local ones. (The U.S. is still a republic and states and local municipalities still have power in ways that provinces and cities in a country like France do not.)

Part of the deal was that the debts of the individual states were absorbed by the new federal government. It was one of the more controversial elements but it had to be done.

Oh, he addresses the question of stimulus versus austerity too.

"Basic monetary theory says that when an economy is in a depression as severe as the one in Greece, the solution is aggressive monetary stimulus. So if you wanted to help Greece, you'd want to start printing more money in an effort to lower interest rates, boost demand, and bring down the country's unemployment rate. (The favorite stimulus of the American Republican party- Cut government spending, but put more money into circulation by cutting personal taxes. The favorite stimulus of the American Democratic Party-more government spending.)


On the other hand, if you were just focusing on the German economy, you'd reach the opposite conclusion. Germany's economy is already booming. The economy can't grow much faster than it already is. So more monetary stimulus will just produce inflation. You might even want to cut back to prevent the German economy from overheating.


The problem is that the ECB is responsible for both Greece and Germany — and 17 other countries as well. The right policy for Greece will be a disaster for Germany, and vice versa. Any policy the ECB picks will be either too tight for some European countries or too loose for others."

 

[DuPidh]

Anxhela, I am sorry, but you are wrong about Greek economy. Probably you don't have information. In the past in Greece were a lot of jobs to do. Many Albanian emigrants worked there, because the Greeks refused to work . I am very informed about the Greek economy. I know from my friends working there, that Greeks don't like to work and they have a high standard of life. Why Greeks should have big pensions. All this anti German propaganda is disgusting. Germans are really hardworking people. Greece is fooling around with all Europe. I am sorry for my words but I am trying to be sincere . Thei need to reduce in maximum their pensions. To bring at 70 their pension age . To reduce in maximum their military budget. To reduce the administration salaries. And in the end they should sell some of their islands [emoji57]. Angela, I respect your opinion on the other threads, but here you are wrong, very wrong.


[emoji629]

You are partially wrong Amigo!
Being a Mexican who lives in America I have often heard Americans say: Blacks need no money since they don't know what to do with them. Its not actually a racist rant. Its a metaphoric way of expressing the need for quality education.
It means that without proper schooling system that teaches people to innovate and take businesses risks money is hard to come. Obviously their schools do not teach things. Skata schools.
They should disband their military altogether since its not mach for the Turkish army anyway. At least they save some money.
They should stop building churches in Albania and paying money to Albanian mercenaries who pose as Greeks so they would be able to save.
They should curb their appetite and open another hole in their belts.
They should take school seriously.
Respect for the moderator Angela for her understanding of European Union.

 

[bicicleur 2]

The United States of Europe don't exist.
There are to many levels of regional governements and to many politicians.
The regional governments are the bread and butter of the upcoming politician.
And Europarliament is a very expensive retirement plan for the politicians.

Capitalism is wrong. Politics is worse.
But we need some kind of order to make the world go round.

 

[Sile]

the EU is only delaying the inevitable by propping up the Greeks for the 4th time. next year or year after, we will have the same scenario.

The Integrity for Greeks is to leave the EU and not be enslaved to it.

 

[Vallicanus]

If the EU seriously wants to be a respected unitary state it must break up the bigger nation states into smaller regional blocs.

 

[Maleth]

The EU officials were dishonest in knowing it and looking the other way, and I don't buy that it was all because they didn't want Greece to fall into the Russian sphere. They wanted it because its always been about markets and flooding these countries with the goods produced by certain nations. Are some Europeans so deluded by the propaganda that they don't see it?

Im beginning to believe that allowing Greece into the EU and the Eurozone without any proper restructuring and manipulating criterias (with EU blessing unlike all other EU and eurozone countries which had to reform before being members) may well have been a real reason at the time.In two of his many cards Tsipras visited Russia on a number of occasions and also suggested joining the BRICS group. My wild guess is that would have thought by time Greece would have reformed itself economically by time but of course it seems like some Greek politicians acted like a spoiled privileged child. I could not believe Hollande saying that we have to remember that Greece is what made us what we are today, as if the EU owes it bail outs every 2 years no questions asked. Now I understand why some Greek politicians act like the spoiled rebellious children who puff and pound and stamp their feet if the do not get what they want. I sincerely could not believe my ears.

There's also a whole debate among economists as to what to do when nations go into debt. Yes, spending has to be brought under control, but the most important thing is to encourage growth, because the deficits would start to melt away in the face of growth. How much "austerity" is too much and will not only retard growth, but, perhaps, plunge a country into a depression? It's a delicate balancing act, and frankly I believe the Eurozone leaders have failed in this regard. Certainly, as has also been pointed out by numerous economists, lowering the interest rate and extending the payment period has NEVER worked. Piling more debt on top of the existing debt means that a country, in this case Greece, will never be able to pay it back. The face amount has to be reduced. I've yet to see any independent economist who doesn't advocate that.

An attitude that wealthy countries have to pay for poorer regions does not give any stimulation for growth. This is not an issue only on a country to country level. Even countries like Italy within its own regions have this issue with Northern regions having to sustain the South. Assistance yes, such as helping out with basic infrastructure and lay the foundations for a healthy economy, but if the healthy economy never materialise, then those who are giving the aid including the people in the region need to know why this is not happening identifying the reasons going to the rootcause and tackle accordingly and not simply sleep on it.

I sincerely hope that the British, for whom I have admiration, take heed and vote no in the coming referendum. The best thing for certain countries would be to negotiate an orderly exit from the Euro and institute more and deeper market reforms. Unfortunately, I don't think they have the ***** to do the first or the knowledge of how to manage an economy to do the second. If Eurozone populations think that there was or is now any real desire to create a "United States" of Europe, I think you're living in la la land.

No one forces anyone to join the Eurozone or the EU and no one forces to stay once they are in. Britian has been skeptic from the first years it has joined the Union (EEC at the time) since 1975 and a number of goverments (mainly conservatives) were anti EU by nature. Guess what? 2015 Britian is still Skeptic but still there. And More? Latest pols show over 60% of British favour EU union with Cameron on the YES to the EU side. Dont you think the Britts would have left by now? lets face it Iceland and Norway and Switzerland are not part of it and its no great tragedy really and everyone can leave if they want. Why dont they? In regards to Britian also note that the Scotts have made it clear that if Britian pull out they want to stay in and be part of the Union. So Britian alos has its own issues.

[video]http://www.euronews.com/2015/06/02/scotland-s-sturgeon-raises-prospect-of-second-independence-referendum-if-uk/[/video]

The United states and the EU are completely two different things. The EU is not based on becoming one single country as the U.S. is. The EU has been flexible in implementing its terms. If it wasn't the case it would not have worked. Even countries that are not part of the EU but close have favorable terms and conditions. Joining the Eurozone is a choice even if part of the EU. The U.S. is a land of relatively recent migrants, the EU is a land of deep rooted histories and cultures. I am not under the impression that there is some burning desire for the EU to become a 'United States' of Europe and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

These are the times I'm glad my parents took me the ****out of Europe.

Wow! Good for you. Many many others are MORE then happy to be living in the most visited Continent in the world....just in case you had any doubt :grin:.

 

[Maleth]

If the EU seriously wants to be a respected unitary state it must break up the bigger nation states into smaller regional blocs.

There was a referendum in Scotland and the No to separation won. How can the EU show respect by breaking it up?

 

[Maleth]

The Integrity for Greeks is to leave the EU and not be enslaved to it.

They have the choice if they want and still in time.....

 

[Sile]

There was a referendum in Scotland and the No to separation won. How can the EU show respect by breaking it up?

the No won, because the English government went up to Scotland and made the scots a huge numbers of promises which they have failed to begin with..............now, the welsh are asking why they need to miss out once the scots get their promises.

The English government should not have given scotland the hand of bribery to stay in the union......a manipulated vote

 

[Maleth]

the No won, because the English government went up to Scotland and made the scots a huge numbers of promises which they have failed to begin with..............now, the welsh are asking why they need to miss out once the scots get their promises.

The English government should not have given scotland the hand of bribery to stay in the union......a manipulated vote

there we go. A British union that has equal rules and centralised policies more stringent then those of the EU, dealing with issues of its own and yet some claim that the EU is a failure and should be dismantled.......

 

[Angela]

If the EU seriously wants to be a respected unitary state it must break up the bigger nation states into smaller regional blocs.

That will never happen, in my opinion. Neither Germany nor France will ever give up its sovereignty. France has never accommodated any "regionalism" even within its borders. Neither has Germany. Indeed, through "Pan-Germanism" it has attempted to spread that "unity" across existing political borders.

That's why, so long as that remains the case, all of these "regional" movements within the other countries are so self-defeating. That's what they want you to do. Then you just become powerless small collections of people with absolutely no influence.

Sile: the EU is only delaying the inevitable by propping up the Greeks for the 4th time. next year or year after, we will have the same scenario.

In one sense I think you're right. Have the debtor countries ever explained to their people that there is no way that a country of 11 million can ever pay back this mountain of debt, and that by loaning more they're just piling debt on top of debt? Every non-European economist I've read says that the face value of the debt has to be cut. In addition, of course, market reforms have to be instituted, and a sensible system of payments has to be established.

Angela Merkle is dead wrong, or disingenuous, by the way, in my opinion, in her statement that there is no mechanism by which to "write down" a sovereign nation's debt. It's been done more than once, and in orderly and more or less effective ways, as can be discovered by any rudimentary research. The 1953 London Agreement is just one example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Agreement_on_German_External_Debts

There are other ways, less "moral" ways, if we want to get into that arena, for a sovereign state to get rid of its debt to foreign countries and banks. You can find examples throughout history, including Germany's history. You can nationalize the holdings of foreign countries, you can totally ignore your debts, and you can then build up your military and dare the other countries to come in and get their repayment. Germany did a version of that under the Nazis. Lots of other countries have done it too. It has to be pointed out though that Germany re-assumed part of that debt (although much of it was, yes, written off) as part of the London Agreement, and the last payment was made in 2010.

Merkel's response to all of this is that she wasn't around then! Who cares if you were around then? Stop with the "holier than thou", we're inherently more moral and virtuous nonsense. It's offensive to anyone who hasn't spent his entire life playing Nintendo instead of paying attention to history and economics.

@Bicicleur

Too much government, too much regulation, too much bureaucracy have brought down many countries/cultures. Many politicians have never held a non-governmental job in their lives. I wouldn't trust most of them to manage a corner grocery store profitably. They're the biggest culprits in all of this. The financial institutions and investment banks should never have been left off the hook for the Greek debt. They took a risk, which is what lending is all about; they made a mistake; they should have "taken the bath" and lost their investment. Instead, we've now got this bastardized version of capitalism where the banks get national governments, and ultimately the taxpayers, to take over the debts. It's total corruption and cronyism and it involves all political parties, not just the "right". To use an American example, Hillary Clinton has gotten as much, if not more, money from "Wall Street" as any Republican. She set up her daughter with a cushy job as a hedge fund manager, which from my populist point of view is one step away from white collar crime, with a salary upwards of 500,000 dollars a year. Is she really "for the people"?

And speaking of white collar crime, why isn't Schaubel in jail? This is the guy Merkel wanted to put in charge of Greek national assets?

 

[Angela]

@LeBrok

Now that I'm more awake, it occurs to me that I answered only part of your question, or I addressed a related issue. So, I'll try again.

When the thirteen original American colonies came together voluntarily to form the "United" States of America, there was no provision for "leaving". It never occurred to the drafters of the Constitution to make provision for that. I know the founding documents of the European Union far less well than the U.S. constitution, but it's my understanding that they also have no such provisions, so I don't know what legal framework there was for Germany to tell Greece that perhaps it should take a "time out". (It sounds like when I used to tell my children to "take a time out" and go sit on the step when they were "bad". My son didn't care and would lounge there, and my daughter would cry. What works for one doesn't work for all. Sorry for the digression, but if you don't find the humor in some of this, even if it's black humor, it just becomes too much.)

Anyway, as time passed, fissures developed between the north, a region of small farms and increasing industrialization, the west, also a region of small farms originally, but dependent on federal projects like the building of railroads for their development, and the large plantation, slave based, agricultural southern economy. Ultimately, they decided they wanted to secede because even with a legislative system that was created to protect the rights of the less populous southern regions, they were going to get outvoted on all matters relating to their economic interest. The policies which made sense for an industrialized north, including the use of tariffs, just raised the cost of the goods the south had to buy. That's just one example. Slavery was, of course, another huge issue. No matter how repugnant it was, it had been implicitly permitted under the U.S. Constitution, and the south was determined to hold onto it. It was only after they lost the Civil War and their state legislatures were under duress and partially "re-stocked" with freedmen and "carpet-baggers" from the north that their state legislatures voted to amend the constitution to make slavery illegal and blacks free and equal citizens of the U.S.

The Civil War was fought, in large part, to prevent secession. Abraham Lincoln certainly went on record early and often that while he found slavery both morally abhorrent and economically unfeasible, his primary goal was to prevent the dissolution of the union,whatever the northern abolitionists may have thought. He is one of the historical figures of any time or place whom I admire the most. That doesn't change the fact that legally there was nothing that said the south couldn't secede. He just believed that the unique moral and political experiment that was American democracy would be imperiled if the south seceded. It's too complicated to get into all the subtleties here.

Since then there have been sporadic outbursts of "secessionism". Texas, which has lots of resources and is more conservative than many parts of the U.S. periodically makes noises about secession. The more conservative parts of the U.S. would love to see the "Marxist Republic of California" secede. Detroit would be insane to want to secede. It has no resources, no infrastructure, and its people are dependent on the federal government, more so now that any services that used to be provided through municipal taxes have disappeared. The federal benefits are a sort of "safety net" for smaller political units in the U.S. If the U.S. government were totally centralized, like that of France, for instance, they wouldn't be "suffering" at all.

It will all come to nothing, if for no other reason than the mobility of labor and residence in the U.S. People are much less attached to "place" here, and always have been, and obviously there is uniformity of language and training. More and more northerners are moving to more conservative areas of the country for work, including Texas, because those places instituted policies to attract commerce and industry and so there are more jobs there, even if some would allege that the jobs pay less. Retirees from more liberal areas also move to more conservative areas because costs of living are lower there because local governments spend less on social services, and so local taxes are lower. The fact that they happen to coincidentally have better climates is just another attractive aspect favoring the move. Someday I'm going to have to do it myself I suppose, although leaving New York would be extremely difficult for me for its cultural aspects alone.

 

[LeBrok]

The United States of Europe don't exist.
There are to many levels of regional governements and to many politicians.
The regional governments are the bread and butter of the upcoming politician.
And Europarliament is a very expensive retirement plan for the politicians.

Capitalism is wrong. Politics is worse.
But we need some kind of order to make the world go round.

Moraly wrong? Mind you, that feudalism is gone, socialism usually fails within few decades, and capitalism is still here 500 years after its conception.

 

[LeBrok]

@LeBrok

Now that I'm more awake, it occurs to me that I answered only part of your question, or I addressed a related issue. So, I'll try again.

I didn't even had time to read through your fertile writing this morning, Angela. I'll address it later on when time allows.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Moraly wrong? Mind you, that feudalism is gone, socialism usually fails within few decades, and capitalism is still here 500 years after its conception.

capitalism per sé isn't wrong
it's wrong when banks start to gamble with others people money and need the government to bail out when things go wrong
that being said, I agree that socialism in all its forms causes much more dammage worldwide then capitalism

 

[Angela]

Maleth: An attitude that wealthy countries have to pay for poorer regions does not give any stimulation for growth. This is not an issue only on a country to country level. Even countries like Italy within its own regions have this issue with Northern regions having to sustain the South. Assistance yes, such as helping out with basic infrastructure and lay the foundations for a healthy economy, but if the healthy economy never materialise, then those who are giving the aid including the people in the region need to know why this is not happening identifying the reasons going to the rootcause and tackle accordingly and not simply sleep on it.

I agree with that, Maleth. Greece has to bear a lot of the responsibility for this mess, and I've never said they shouldn't be held responsible. I've been very clear about what I think about the economic policies of this leftist party. That doesn't have anything to do, in my opinion, with whether or not there are intrinsic problems with the very structure of the EU, problems which manifest themselves also in the insane lack of a unified policy in dealing with the massive migration from third world countries.

This isn't about the problems with under-performing regions of a unified country, as in the case of Italy, or the U.S., for that matter, although in the case of the U.S. it's not a strictly "regional" issue. In the case of Italy, the Padanist solution was indeed secession, although in that case it would have been the prosperous regions seceding. That will never happen either, if only because of the massive emigration of southerners to the north over the last 60 or more years. It's similar to what happened in the U.S. What did they think would happen? That the southerners living in parts of the north for generations would vote for secession? Did they think Italians would opt for civil war in the streets of Torino? We had enough of that in 1943-1945. Plus, there's been too much mingling and inter-marriage.

No one forces anyone to join the Eurozone or the EU and no one forces to stay once they are in. Britian has been skeptic from the first years it has joined the Union (EEC at the time) since 1975 and a number of goverments (mainly conservatives) were anti EU by nature. Guess what? 2015 Britian is still Skeptic but still there. And More? Latest pols show over 60% of British favour EU union with Cameron on the YES to the EU side. Dont you think the Britts would have left by now? lets face it Iceland and Norway and Switzerland are not part of it and its no great tragedy really and everyone can leave if they want. Why dont they? In regards to Britian also note that the Scotts have made it clear that if Britian pull out they want to stay in and be part of the Union. So Britian alos has its own issues.

You're absolutely right. No one forced them to join, and I don't think anyone is now forcing them to stay. In fact, Germany now seems to want Greece to leave, even though, because of a lack of foresight by the founding members of the EU, I don't see what mechanisms are in place for that. My point is that certain countries should leave, but they should leave in an orderly or managed way. Certainly, if they leave and want to prosper they should institute market reforms and control spending. The point is that they would also be able to have some control of their currency and be able to manipulate it judiciously as part of sound economic policy. All sovereign nations do that. China is a master of it. Note that I said "judiciously" and as part of "sound" economic policy. I'm by no means advocating so much "qualitative" easing that their currency becomes worthless.

The Greek government is indeed acting like a spoilt child. They don't want to acknowledge their responsibility for, in effect, lying to get into the EU. They don't want to acknowledge their idiocy in spending all this money on defense and military equipment. They don't want to institute market reforms. They don't want to enforce fair rules of taxation. They don't want to stop the distribution of assets through party cronyism. At the same time, they want to stay in the EU, however, even while they don't want to follow the EU rules.

None of this changes the fact, in my opinion, that the prudent and financially sound solution is for the EU to cut the face value of the debt once it sees that some of these reforms have been implemented.

As for Britain, we'll see what the British decide. This debacle may indeed impact the vote. I have no idea why Britain would ever consider joining, frankly. They're doing fine. If they want to join a larger union, they'd be better off and safer joining the US and adopting the dollar. I think it would be very imprudent indeed of them to trust the dominant EU countries. Their geopolitical stance for much of their history has been based on not trusting the continental powers, and from the perspective of their own national interest they were right. At the very least, Cameron is going to drive a much harder bargain.

[video]http://www.euronews.com/2015/06/02/scotland-s-sturgeon-raises-prospect-of-second-independence-referendum-if-uk/[/video]

This is sort of analogous to southern Italy wanting to secede from the north. It makes more sense in that Scotland has its newly discovered energy resources, so I suppose there's some hope that they could survive. However, wasn't the infrastructure built by outsiders? What is Scotland going to do? Nationalize it all? Who is going to capitalize them in the future, then? Does anyone know how much they pay in taxes versus how much they get in terms of benefits from the larger union? They'd better make sure they get more than they'll lose by all of this. What if "England" were to slap "tariffs" on whatever they produce? Every situation is different. What I do know is that decisions should be based on balance sheets and math, not fantasies of past "ethnic" glory.

The United states and the EU are completely two different things. The EU is not based on becoming one single country as the U.S. is. The EU has been flexible in implementing its terms. If it wasn't the case it would not have worked. Even countries that are not part of the EU but close have favorable terms and conditions. Joining the Eurozone is a choice even if part of the EU. The U.S. is a land of relatively recent migrants, the EU is a land of deep rooted histories and cultures. I am not under the impression that there is some burning desire for the EU to become a 'United States' of Europe and I sincerely hope it stays that way

.

I don't see it that way. It's the very fact that the EU is not more unified which is the cause of the fact that it isn't working, not for all countries. It's also true that within the EU itself there is a recognition of this fact. That's why there have been more and more laws passed to unify the banking system, for example. That's why there has been all that talk about trying to reach "more union". My point is that it's never going to happen.

Wow! Good for you. Many many others are MORE then happy to be living in the most visited Continent in the world....just in case you had any doubt

.

Maleth, you know how much I love my native country and its culture and the Italian people. It's just that I get very frustrated when confronted by the unending "ethnic" conflicts and and even sub-ethnic conflicts and the constant harping on tribal differences that seems to torpedo any positive developments.

Also, forgive me, visiting is different from living there. I will happily one day retire there, and pay my taxes there, but would I want my children to re-locate there or anywhere in Europe? If I have to be honest, no I wouldn't.

What you can do here in terms of individual betterment and self actualization if you have a brain and the willingness to work hard is not possible anywhere else, in my opinion, and you can do it without all this everlasting and destructive inter-European conflict, and before you say it, yes, we have our racial conflicts, but I am optimistic that we will solve those as well with enough good will on all sides.

Now, I've said everything I have to say on the topic, and I do have a life, so I'm going back to it. No disrespect to anyone if I don't respond for a while.

 

[Ike]

Moraly wrong? Mind you, that feudalism is gone, socialism usually fails within few decades, and capitalism is still here 500 years after its conception.

We have already concluded that you're not using appropriate terms. What you call capitalism is just an imperialism, and that's why it works. What you call communism is also imperialism, and it would have also worked if there wasn't for forementioned imperialism. If nazis didn't turn to devastate Russia, but did that to England, France, and got stopped somewhere around Washington city, I bet you'd now be a hadrcode communist living on Ural, typing all this in Polish on some Москович Лаптоп.

 

[Garrick]

No problemo. Though outsiders tend to have more objective view, and people involved often are too emotional to think straight.

Only partially. Because medal has two sides. Yes, people who are away from the arena usually have more objective view, they can have trust of insiders and bring different perspectives of a problem. But outsiders, including experts, can strive for more drastic decisions and actions because they will not live with their repercussions. Also, they cannot understand enough culture and tradition of an area. Or else insiders are usually more deliberate because they must live with consequences of their decisions and actions.