Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamie B on February 12, 2012, 04:14:56 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/bailout-chaos-pm-papademos-tells-greece-005703038.html
Greek lawmakers are still trying to pass an austerity bill.
Many Greek citizens are tired of austerity measures (again) and are rioting with Molotov cocktails.
The UE, especially Germany, are tired of coughing up another bail-out plan that Greece will probably ignore.
If the new austerity bill and EU bailout fail, Greek will go into bankruptcy.
I wonder why the EU is still trying to help at this point?
-
They're trying to help because the cascade of failure is going to disassemble the EU. I get a giggle these days out of the financial news, everyone wants to be hopeful like the recovery is on. The other shoe has not dropped yet only because it was thrown really hard.
-
I wonder why the EU is still trying to help at this point?
Because if the Greeks walk out of the Euro - and choose bankrupcy rather than austerity - others will follow in their wake, and the Euro will probably collapse, with the EU (or at least its current form) following along shortly after. You would then start to think that questions will be asked as to what on earth European leaders have been doing for the past forty years, and why so many of them are so comfortably off.
-
So the terrible Greek economy is that necessary for the survival of the EU?
Or is it more symbolic in making sure that no country exits?
It seems that Germany is the only EU member that is forking out the money for this bailout.
It also seems that there is great risk that the Greeks will piss away this bailout just like 5 years ago.
Interesting dynamics.
-
It's a great system they have going - wealthy bankers make money in deals of questionable morality with Greek government officials, then scream "live within your means!" to the great majority of greeks who had no part or say in that borrowing.
Bankers get wealthy, Government officials get their accounts in those same banks, and the vast majority of people in Greece have education, health, and other services that they'd considered part of their income cut to nothing.
The Euro is a financial scam; they'd be right to walk out on it.
-
So the terrible Greek economy is that necessary for the survival of the EU?
Or is it more symbolic in making sure that no country exits?
It seems that Germany is the only EU member that is forking out the money for this bailout.
It also seems that there is great risk that the Greeks will piss away this bailout just like 5 years ago.
Interesting dynamics.
Lotsa banks in other parts of EUroland own Greek debt. They will get it, uh, Greek-style if Greece goes bankrupt. Same with some American banks.
The only questions are:
* Do the banks get any lube before getting Greek (negotiated writeoffs via bailouts)?
* Do the banks get Greek dry & rough (bankruptcy)?
In the former case, the taxpayers from more responsible and productive nations get a good Greeking, too.
As far as DS's comment and the pore, pore Greek people getting duped into voting for spend & borrow commies & socialists who finally ran out of OPM and credit...it is laughable.
The Greeks lived, for a while, like the more productive euros in the north of Europe for a while, but had to borrow to do so. They, like petulant children with explosives, now don't want to pay for what they have consumed and live within their means.
-
Who were all these greeks who "lived like northern euros", and also had a say in the borrowing practices of their Government?
It's a fundamentally flawed analysis to say "the greeks" did this as if Greece were an upright, transparent country that let everyone have a say and doled out the spoils of borrowing on a democratic basis. It was the opposite; but now they want to dole out the costs of the borrowing evenly.
It should be the individuals who made these decisions, and the individuals who directly benefitted from them, that pay it back. Not the Greek masses who had as little choice in the matter as they do now.
-
It should be the individuals who made these decisions, and the individuals who directly benefitted from them, that pay it back. Not the Greek masses who had as little choice in the matter as they do now.
The folks facing "Austerity Measures" (I love that euphemism) would seem to be at least some of the folks that benefited. Or else their pensions would still be funded.
On the decision making, well the problem with nations is that lots of folks pay for the decisions of few. Still beats not having nations.
-
They chose socialists who promised them more, more, more so I'd say that yeah, they had a say in their gov'ts borrowing practices. Elect stupid crooks, win stupid crook prizes.
-
Elect stupid crooks, win stupid crook prizes.
A good epitaph for Illinois.
-
Who were all these greeks who "lived like northern euros", and also had a say in the borrowing practices of their Government?
It's a fundamentally flawed analysis to say "the greeks" did this as if Greece were an upright, transparent country that let everyone have a say and doled out the spoils of borrowing on a democratic basis. It was the opposite; but now they want to dole out the costs of the borrowing evenly.
It should be the individuals who made these decisions, and the individuals who directly benefitted from them, that pay it back. Not the Greek masses who had as little choice in the matter as they do now.
This post contains a great deal of sense, apart from the "they want to dole out the costs of the borrowing evenly" bit. After all, the same people who benefitted from what the Greek political class did with regards to the Euro (the borrowing, the voluntary nature of taxation at that level, and the financial japes and scams which were necessary to get into the Euro in the first place) are the same people who are emphatically not going to be hit with the austerity stick.
-
The globalists won't let mudmen stay mudmen.
-
Who were all these greeks who "lived like northern euros", and also had a say in the borrowing practices of their Government?
It's a fundamentally flawed analysis to say "the greeks" did this as if Greece were an upright, transparent country that let everyone have a say and doled out the spoils of borrowing on a democratic basis. It was the opposite; but now they want to dole out the costs of the borrowing evenly.
It should be the individuals who made these decisions, and the individuals who directly benefitted from them, that pay it back. Not the Greek masses who had as little choice in the matter as they do now.
No doubt the Greek process is as rigged as our election system. But there is still a level of accountability, De Selby. The Greek populace supported overspending. Not in the particulars, but the people wanted the bacon.
You can try to blame the bankers, and I agree that there are plenty of short sighted morons in the executive ranks of many banks. Know how hard it was to find a bank that would put in writing that they would not resell my mortgage? AND I paid for that, with an extra half percentage. I bought a house within my price range. No banker forced me at gunpoint to borrow excessively, and in a manner that was hostile to the overall economy.
Blaming bankers is only partially correct. Without government support, they would not be able to make stupid decisions. Well, more than once in any spectacular manner. Because they'd go bankrupt or insolvent.
-
So is a default actually in the cards?
-
So is a default actually in the cards?
Hopefully. It will make folks less likely to invest in governments with poor financial management.
-
Lotsa banks in other parts of EUroland own Greek debt. They will get it, uh, Greek-style if Greece goes bankrupt. Same with some American banks.
I think you meant "Italian-style" (bunga-bunga).
-
Hopefully. It will make folks less likely to invest in governments with poor financial management.
I'd be very sympathethic if they just went "screw you and screw your loans", at this stage. I'd rather have a sovereign welfare state than one subordinate to foreign masters and local unelected bureaucrats.
-
A few hours ago, the Greek.government agreed to the austerity package. Stocks dshould do better tomorrow.
-
A few hours ago, the Greek.government agreed to the austerity package. Stocks dshould do better tomorrow.
See you in a fortnight for the next Greek thread, then.
[popcorn]
-
Given Greece's recent economic history, passing austerity measures and actually following them are 2 different animals.
-
No doubt the Greek process is as rigged as our election system. But there is still a level of accountability, De Selby. The Greek populace supported overspending. Not in the particulars, but the people wanted the bacon.
You can try to blame the bankers, and I agree that there are plenty of short sighted morons in the executive ranks of many banks. Know how hard it was to find a bank that would put in writing that they would not resell my mortgage? AND I paid for that, with an extra half percentage. I bought a house within my price range. No banker forced me at gunpoint to borrow excessively, and in a manner that was hostile to the overall economy.
Blaming bankers is only partially correct. Without government support, they would not be able to make stupid decisions. Well, more than once in any spectacular manner. Because they'd go bankrupt or insolvent.
I did not pay to not have my loan re-sold. When time came to see how much money we could borrow, we excluded my wife's income and then only borrowed 2/3 of what they said they'd be fine lending us...'cause I was not fine with borrowing that much.
The idea was that either wife or self could keep it together if one of us were unemployed and to not be a slave to the house.
Hopefully. It will make folks less likely to invest in governments with poor financial management.
I do hope Greece tanks sooner rather than later, for tank they will.
Bailouts of financial institutions have become so common it is now expected. This must change.
-
. . . I bought a house within my price range. No banker forced me at gunpoint to borrow excessively, and in a manner that was hostile to the overall economy.
Just for the heck of it, I've looked at a couple of the "on line" mortgage calculators, and entered my finances.
Every one of them suggests I would qualify for a loan that is 2x the total value of my home.
I don't live in a dump - 4br 3ba 1 story in a decent suburb - but it's not a McMansion either. AND . . . it has the virtue of being paid for, which means a lot since things are getting a little dodgy at work.
I manage my finances and live within my means, so why the <expletive> <expletive> <string of expletives> can't the <expletive> governments of the world do the same? <expletive!>
-
Just for the heck of it, I've looked at a couple of the "on line" mortgage calculators, and entered my finances.
Every one of them suggests I would qualify for a loan that is 2x the total value of my home.
I don't live in a dump - 4br 3ba 1 story in a decent suburb - but it's not a McMansion either. AND . . . it has the virtue of being paid for, which means a lot since things are getting a little dodgy at work.
I manage my finances and live within my means, so why the <expletive> <expletive> <string of expletives> can't the <expletive> governments of the world do the same? <expletive!>
The politicians in spending other peoples' money are divorced from the responsibilities and repercussions that are normally associated from gross overspending, over-borrowing and general mismanagement. A person who behaves very badly financially can have their property seized, be thrown out of their home, imprisoned, etc. Those things do not happen to the politicians who engage in the same behavior at the nation-state level and thus the most immediate and personal negative-incentives that would normally restrain even a person who lacks an inherent ethical regard for financial soundness are absent.
-
The rule of the game in years past is a government gets into hock up to its eyeballs all with the approval of voters, politicians, bureaucrats, and "financial community". When it becomes apparent said government can not sustain the price of sustaining accumulated loans the borrowers go to the "financial community" and asks for relief. The "FC" responds by adjusting the length of loans and/or the interest rate with one goal in mind. . . . .keep interest payments coming in. Anyone who has ever tried to buy a car on credit knows the rules of the game.
Political, economic and financial circumstances in effect for Greece and virtually every other western government will see to it the usual play will not work. The only alternative is to reduce the principal of the loans wither through voluntary action by "FC" or by default, something the "FC" will not want to do.
Now is it right (morally, economically, financially, politically) to force the "FC" to take the haircut? I do know a whole lot individuals benefited handsomely from the gamesmanship and I think at some level they too need to participate in the pain.
-
Globalization, the religion of the "financial community," has one model for Everywhere. Some nations were made to be backward, materially poor, self-sufficient, and, one hopes, modestly happy. This of course is not enough for the global power-brokers and cartel manipulators for whom everyone and everything is just another leveraged loan profit center.
-
Globalization, the religion of the "financial community," has one model for Everywhere. Some nations were made to be backward, materially poor, self-sufficient, and, one hopes, modestly happy. This of course is not enough for the global power-brokers and cartel manipulators for whom everyone and everything is just another leveraged loan profit center.
Nonsense. Freedom is for everyone.
-
I love this idea that big finance has just been "shortsighted" in this crisis - on the contrary, they're doing better than ever. Their salaries aren't being taken back to pay for the bad corporate decisions they presided over, nor are there moves to seize their investment portfolios or other sources of income to pay.
Instead, they and the corrupt regulators they dealt with get to keep their millions, call for "austerity measures" that mean fewer taxes paid by them (at the expense of fewer benefits for the public), and then hire back all the unemployed as peasants on their mansions.
It's a pretty darn smart strategy, if you ask me - they are on track to recreate feudalism with themselves as the landlords.
In America, they've managed to lay the blame on consumers, who had the least say in how wall street financial instruments were created that destroyed housing values and left all the banks (not their employees or CEOs, though) in need of public cash. This was less so in Greece, which had an even more corrupt government.
But nevermind all that, keep demanding market discipline for the guy who makes $10 a day washing windows - he needs it, not the financier millionaires whose windows he washes.
-
In America, they've managed to lay the blame on consumers, who had the least say in how wall street financial instruments were created that destroyed housing values and left all the banks (not their employees or CEOs, though) in need of public cash. This was less so in Greece, which had an even more corrupt government.
Oh, I think our government measures right up there with the Greeks. >:D >:D
-
Nonsense. Freedom is for everyone.
If you think globalism is the engine of universal liberty you are very, very much mistaken, my friend. Hooking diverse peoples on the welfare state, consumerism, and unpayable debt is the antithesis of "freedom."
-
Nonsense. Freedom is for everyone.
You might want to read his post. :lol:
-
Nonsense. Freedom is for everyone.
Wrong in two ways.
First, in the way longeyes wrote his post. I'll let others demonstrate how.
Second, in the way you read his post. Many folks don't want freedom, they just want to lord it over the other guy.
-
Wrong in two ways.
First, in the way longeyes wrote his post. I'll let others demonstrate how.
Second, in the way you read his post. Many folks don't want freedom, they just want to lord it over the other guy.
Maybe that is true, but that is irrelevant in two ways:
1. The morally superior choice is always freedom, whether dealing in Greeks, Japanese, or Finns.
2. The economically superior choice is always freedom.
-
So you think the Greeks got "freedom" when they created an unsustainable welfare state based on empty promises, hedonism, slackerhood, and IOUs to the banking mafia of Europe? So is the new hip welfare state Greece better off--and more free--than the old Greece that eked out a spare but honest living off its historical legacy as a museum with a Mediterranean climate hosting German tourists with Baedekers and lederhosen?
-
This is hardly the choice.
The choice is between a welfare state controlled by Europe (and temporarily pared back to a slightly smaller welfare state), not even to establish some kind of 'freedom' or 'fiscal sanity' but merely to bail out some wealthy bankers - and a welfare state that is at least run by Greeks. The Greeks can leave the EU, reinstate the drachma (which will incidentally make their country more attractive to tourists) and gradually pay their debt down as economic growth ensues again after some period of turmoil. THe Eurocrats will not let that happen.
-
Fine, let Greece be Greece, I'm all for that, but do you really believe an independent Greece--which I favor--can sustain the kind of welfare state they now want? Sustainable liberty depends on virtue, and a certain kind of virtue expressed out in economic terms. Then do you agree that globalization/globalism is in fact a major component in this situation? There are no Zorbas in Brussels.
-
Sometimes globalism develops cracks - when the British owners of Icelandic banks made bad loans to Europeans and saw their British depositors were going to lose money, they prevailed upon the Icelandic government to raise taxes on Icelanders to make good the losses.
Unfortunately, those uppity Icelanders - who were not in line to receive any profits from the banks were they to be successful - balked, and rejected the call to accept responsibility for the foreigner's losses in a nationwide referendum.
Pesky serfs ought to respect their titled betters.
Now the Greeks want someone else to bail them out . . . and the someone else they're looking to is balking. Uh oh.
(Look for this scenario to be replayed with California in the near future.)
-
Fine, let Greece be Greece, I'm all for that, but do you really believe an independent Greece--which I favor--can sustain the kind of welfare state they now want? Sustainable liberty depends on virtue, and a certain kind of virtue expressed out in economic terms. Then do you agree that globalization/globalism is in fact a major component in this situation? There are no Zorbas in Brussels.
Not today, no. But an independent Greece *might* find it easier to afford it again in the future - for a limited period of time of course, but I am no proponent of welfare state.
There is not a struggle between liberty and a welfare state, anywhere in the world.
-
Not today, no. But an independent Greece *might* find it easier to afford it again in the future - for a limited period of time of course, but I am no proponent of welfare state.
There is not a struggle between liberty and a welfare state, anywhere in the world.
I could swear there's one right here in the good ol' USA... When people want the best for you, reach for your revolver.
-
There is not a struggle between liberty and a welfare state, anywhere in the world.
Huh, what?
Welfare state progressivism is antithetical to liberty.
-
Huh, what?
Welfare state progressivism is antithetical to liberty.
I agree. However, it's antithetical to liberty in the sense of American decline. Where it expands, where there used to be more economic liberty etc.
I think Micro is saying that in the Hobsonian view of history and the world as a whole, where people are killed, raped, burned, beaten, imprisoned, and herded about willy nilly by the powers that be is the normal way of things, fretting over a nominal Euro-style socialist democracy vs. some Libertarian minarchy/Anarcho-capitalist state... just isn't that big a deal.
From my point of view, trying to impose the level of socialism in say Greece, much of Europe, or even Israel... here in the U.S. would have me ready to do violence to try and prevent it. And in fact I get more fretful about the direction of our country in such matters every day. I weigh the trends, vs. the ages of my children, and when they'll be independent adults, and were I to "do something about it", it would no longer ruin their lives.
On the other hand, in terms of practical personal liberty, from the point of view of the average human being anywhere in the world through 95% of recorded history, or people today in many parts of Africa, Asia, or the Middle East, Greece in it's present state would seem like paradise.
Micro, correct me if I'm wrong here...
-
Huh, what?
Welfare state progressivism is antithetical to liberty.
Yes, thank you, and?
There's nowhere in the world (excepting Virginia), right at the present, that the electorate actually faces an up-or-down choice, where you actually can choose between "European welfare state" and "individual liberty". The choices they have, in Greece, is "welfare state managed by the Greeks" and "welfare state managed by unelected Eurocrats via remote control". That's all there is, really. It's not like the Europeans are coming in and imposing magnificient liberty at loan-point.
Yes, right now the policies they are promoting seems to be sensible. But the danger of letting the Europeans manipulate entire states' economic policies the same way they seem to want to manage individual is far beyond the individual merits of a specific decision.
-
I just remembered, my parents along with an aunt and uncle are going on a cruise to Greece in May... :facepalm:
They're all "60, going on 40" types in health, appearance, and attitude/outlook, so I don't worry for their safety, none of them are "old", just that they may have their vacation ruined.
-
Things are so bad, they hired a Mexican to play Zorba.
-
Things are so bad, they hired a Mexican to play Zorba.
Well, Anthony Quinn is dead, so they wouldn't have hired him anyway. ;)
-
Not today, no. But an independent Greece *might* find it easier to afford it again in the future - for a limited period of time of course . . .
You mean until people realized that the drachmas an independent Greece minted were worth about as much as Zimbabwe dollars?
-
You mean until people realized that the drachmas an independent Greece minted were worth about as much as Zimbabwe dollars?
You've never heard of inflation helping export-based economies, you mean?
-
You've never heard of inflation helping export-based economies, you mean?
Or tourism.
-
Greece bailed out again, in exchange of giving up control of its revenue.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_EUROPE_FINANCIAL_CRISIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-21-08-18-17
Greece will also have to pass within the next two months a new law that gives paying off the debt legal priority over funding government services. In the meantime, Athens has to set up an escrow account, managed separately from its main budget, that will at all times have to contain enough money to service its debts for the coming three months.
These requirements, together with tighter on-the-ground monitoring, are an unprecedented intrusion into the fiscal affairs of a sovereign state in Europe and could eventually see Greece being forced to pay interest on its debt before compensating teachers, doctors and other state employees.
Haha... the Greeks are going to get punched in the seat so freaking hard. Sovereignty gone. They are just a financial protectorate or client state now. Might as well just toss their flag and call themselves euro-serfs.
-
Haha... the Greeks are going to get punched in the seat so freaking hard. Sovereignty gone. They are just a financial protectorate or client state now. Might as well just toss their flag and call themselves euro-serfs.
TBH I doubt the Greeks are going to be the ones getting punched in the seat, the EU mob will inevitably push this too far and it will blow up in their faces (possibly literally in the case of those poor EU drones who are going to have to oversee this in Athens) when enough of the Greeks realise that the EU is not going to stop ramping these demands up, doesnt have the ability to back up its threats with any kind of actual force (be it economic, political or military) whatsoever, and the "doomsday scenario" (ie: decouple and default) that they keep getting told about is actually much better for the short, medium and long term future of their country than the bailout "medicine" is.
Once the Greeks realise that, so will the rest of the PIGS. Then so will everyone else, and the EU in its current form dies.
-
^^^ And in that light, it is interesting to see if Portugal is going to make it. With crippling austerity measures mandated by the EU on top of a deepening recession, it is difficult to see how Portugal is going to save their way out of this mess.
-
Austerity measures have never lifted a country out of budget and economic woes - they should be looking to places like Argentina and Venezuela for models.
This is what happens when market fundamentalism meets sovereignty. They keep prescribing cures whose only foreseeable outcome is to impoverish the entire country.
-
Austerity measures have never lifted a country out of budget and economic woes - they should be looking to places like Argentina and Venezuela for models.
This is what happens when market fundamentalism meets sovereignty. They keep prescribing cures whose only foreseeable outcome is to impoverish the entire country.
Nor has a nation ever taxed its populace and economy into prosperity either.
-
As mentioned above, we should all be watching Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain to see how this all shakes out. I think Agricola has nailed it. Especially interesting will be the upcoming Greek elections and if the new government will follow the agreements of the preceding government.
-
Nor has a nation ever taxed its populace and economy into prosperity either.
As with so many other things in life, I suspect moderation is the key in macroeconomics as well.
-
Austerity measures have never lifted a country out of budget and economic woes - they should be looking to places like Argentina and Venezuela for models.
This is what happens when market fundamentalism meets sovereignty. They keep prescribing cures whose only foreseeable outcome is to impoverish the entire country.
spening less money - such an insane notion for getting out of debt.
-
spening less money - such an insane notion for getting out of debt.
It's a proven failure under the circumstances - no investment means no growth, and growth is the only way out of the hole.
austerity measures have never been proven to promote growth.
For all the crap spending gets, Argentina actually is much better off for having ignored similar demands from the IMF, and Venezuela essentially doubled its economy with socialist programs.
Don't let the facts get in the way of sermons about markets, though. "Markets are efficient!" is the economic version of "that's racist!"
-
It's a proven failure under the circumstances - no investment means no growth, and growth is the only way out of the hole.
austerity measures have never been proven to promote growth.
For all the crap spending gets, Argentina actually is much better off for having ignored similar demands from the IMF, and Venezuela essentially doubled its economy with socialist programs.
Don't let the facts get in the way of sermons about markets, though. "Markets are efficient!" is the economic version of "that's racist!"
Governments don't invest, they tax the citizens and then spend, sometimes on worthy programs.
Venezuela? Maybe we should start seizing all the multi-national oil facilities here in the USA and nationalize them so we can grow our economy.
-
Ron, government spending can constitute investment - examples abound.
You may scoff at Chavez's methods, but he's literally halved the number of people in poverty, and added ten times the number of doctors to his country compared to what was there previously.
He did this while dismantling centralized Government and dramatically increasing the power of local governments to decide their own issues, including spending.
But the euro bankers don't count that as success - its not a model to follow because it doesn't make bankers rich. That's not development!
-
Ron, government spending can constitute investment - examples abound.
You may scoff at Chavez's methods, but he's literally halved the number of people in poverty, and added ten times the number of doctors to his country compared to what was there previously.
He did this while dismantling centralized Government and dramatically increasing the power of local governments to decide their own issues, including spending.
But the euro bankers don't count that as success - its not a model to follow because it doesn't make bankers rich. That's not development!
Chavez is a ***** communist. He'll be no more successful at producing a vibrant society than was Castro.
It's a proven failure under the circumstances - no investment means no growth, and growth is the only way out of the hole.
austerity measures have never been proven to promote growth.
For all the crap spending gets, Argentina actually is much better off for having ignored similar demands from the IMF, and Venezuela essentially doubled its economy with socialist programs.
Don't let the facts get in the way of sermons about markets, though. "Markets are efficient!" is the economic version of "that's racist!"
Markets are more efficient than government. It was Reagan who got America out of the Carter Malaise in the early 80s by reducing the tax burden. Even Clinton's retroactive tax hike couldn't dampen the economic boon that resulted from the R&D of the Reagan years.
In contrast, Obama has spent billions on "stimulus" and much of it has gone to waste.
FDR's mad spending during the Great Depression didn't help ameliorate the economic woes of the day either.
Sorry De Selby, there's just nothing to back up your irrational statist view of economics.
-
It's a proven failure under the circumstances - no investment means no growth, and growth is the only way out of the hole.
Joe Biden was right. We have to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt.
-
Tommy, I note you aren't disputing the results ofmchavez's policies - using a bad label doesn't change the fact that he already actually achieved results. It's nonsense to allege that he won't better the Venezuelan economy; he already did.
Monkeyleg, that shouldn't be such a strange concept for a businessman - if you don't spend on things that generate income, youll make none.
-
Tommy, I note you aren't disputing the results ofmchavez's policies - using a bad label doesn't change the fact that he already actually achieved results. It's nonsense to allege that he won't better the Venezuelan economy; he already did.
Monkeyleg, that shouldn't be such a strange concept for a businessman - if you don't spend on things that generate income, youll make none.
Not any results I approve of if grabbing land and taking over radio stations and generally acting like a tyrant (which he is). I have visited Venezuela and it was a rich and vibrant country when I was there given all the oil it had. Chavez is pissing all that away on military cr@p which he doesn't need and his country is an utter mess compared to what it was. I don't know where the h*** you get your information from.
Before long Venezuela will go the way of the former U.S.S.R. as is usually the way when a country adopts a top down controlled economy. :'(
I honestly think you are from a different planet, sometimes, De Selby....... ;)
-
Monkeyleg, that shouldn't be such a strange concept for a businessman - if you don't spend on things that generate income, youll make none.
But government doesn't generate income. People and businesses generate income, some portion of which is taken by government in the form of taxes to spend on things useful and not so useful.*
Are you saying that Obama, Biden, et al should have waited until the economy got worse before spending trillions to boost the economy? Stimuli I and II haven't helped. Is that because the economy wasn't bad enough?
*It should be noted that the government does run some businesses. For example, in 1991 the IRS seized The Mustang Ranch, a legal brothel located about 25 or so miles east of Carson City, Nevada. The brothel had opened in the 1970's and became one of the best known brothels in the world (thanks to good PR). The IRS seized it because of back taxes owed, and has been running it ever since. Since it was taken over by the feds in '91, The Mustang Ranch has been running in the red every year. Not exactly generating income, is it?
-
It's a proven failure under the circumstances - no investment means no growth, and growth is the only way out of the hole.
austerity measures have never been proven to promote growth.
Nothing has been "proven" to do anything. Economics is not a science.
The Soviet Union maintained GDP growth for decades - if you believe Brezhnev's economic reports, that is. This doesn't mean it wouldn't have been better off with markets.
Also, what do you define as "Austerity"?
-
Before long Venezuela will go the way of the former U.S.S.R. as is usually the way when a country adopts a top down controlled economy.
Just like the USA :facepalm:
-
Ron, government spending can constitute investment - examples abound.
You may scoff at Chavez's methods, but he's literally halved the number of people in poverty, and added ten times the number of doctors to his country compared to what was there previously.
He did this while dismantling centralized Government and dramatically increasing the power of local governments to decide their own issues, including spending.
But the euro bankers don't count that as success - its not a model to follow because it doesn't make bankers rich. That's not development!
I would say that Chavez's type of prosperity is no more sustainable than any other welfare state that spends itself into insolvency and and bankruptcy. It is not uncommon for those on the left to pine after the absolute power of dictators like Chavez. If you have absolute power you can really get things done!
Without serious free market reforms the Chavez miracle will eventually join its progenitor in the dustbin of history.
-
It is not uncommon for those on the left to pine after the absolute power of dictators like Chavez. If you have absolute power you can really get things done!
Boy, ain't that the truth.
-
Pointing at Chavez as an example of prosperity is like admiring the man with the big house and fancy new car, even if he's living on credit cards and his three mortgages and will inevitably go bankrupt.
-
From my POV, it is best to let Greece sink, along with all the financial institutions that over-invested in Greek debt.
Maybe next time, banks won't be so quick to loan money to basket case countries or will only do so at real risk-adjusted rates that make the borrowers think twice.
-
Pointing at Chavez as an example of prosperity is like admiring the man with the big house and fancy new car, even if he's living on credit cards and his three mortgages and will inevitably go bankrupt.
I'd say it's more like admiring the mafia boss with the big house and fancy new car, even though he's going to wind up in jail or at the bottom of a river.
-
I'd say it's more like admiring the mafia boss with the big house and fancy new car, even though he's going to wind up in jail or at the bottom of a river.
Switzerland is probably a safer bet.
-
Ron, government spending can constitute investment - examples abound.
You may scoff at Chavez's methods, but he's literally halved the number of people in poverty, and added ten times the number of doctors to his country compared to what was there previously.
He did this while dismantling centralized Government and dramatically increasing the power of local governments to decide their own issues, including spending.
But the euro bankers don't count that as success - its not a model to follow because it doesn't make bankers rich. That's not development!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2Fsnake-eats-own-tail.jpg&hash=861795cd88805caf50c8bb7f5ef380827b139205)
-
Let them eat olives.
-
I'd say it's more like admiring the mafia boss with the big house and fancy new car, even though he's going to wind up in jail or at the bottom of a river.
How is this an image of Chavez? Far from perfect, but he does actually run fair elections and abide by the results. Winning elections and then implementing what you campaigned on (especially when ou do it by emphasizing local government, as Chavez does) is not dictatorial.
Tommygunn, what's the evil you think Chavez is visiting on Venezuelans? There can be no doubt that they are on average richer, healthier, and better educated today than prior to his election. Nor that Venezuela actually has free elections, something that wasn't the case in the past either.
I think the rants against Chavez are based on his clownish behaviour and rhetoric, and not on his actual results, which have so far been good for most Venezuelans.
-
Nothing has been "proven" to do anything. Economics is not a science.
The Soviet Union maintained GDP growth for decades - if you believe Brezhnev's economic reports, that is. This doesn't mean it wouldn't have been better off with markets.
Also, what do you define as "Austerity"?
I'd be happy to see any "real" numbers about the economic hardships wrought by Chavez - and, again, the balanced budget/pro business model is what preceded him. There's no rational way to say that system would be better, because we already have a record with it.
Austerity means deep cuts in social spending (meaning spending that delivers goods and services to the majority of the population), without corresponding increases in payments to those same people. Those funds are then used to pay creditors of the government instead.
Argentina was given a Greek prescription not too long ago - they ignored it and are better off for having done so.
-
How is this an image of Chavez? Far from perfect, but he does actually run fair elections and abide by the results. Winning elections and then implementing what you campaigned on (especially when ou do it by emphasizing local government, as Chavez does) is not dictatorial.
Tommygunn, what's the evil you think Chavez is visiting on Venezuelans? There can be no doubt that they are on average richer, healthier, and better educated today than prior to his election. Nor that Venezuela actually has free elections, something that wasn't the case in the past either.
I think the rants against Chavez are based on his clownish behaviour and rhetoric, and not on his actual results, which have so far been good for most Venezuelans.
De Selby, in case you've had your ****head up your **** , Chavez has been confiscating privatly owned land and turning it over to people he deems should own it. He has shut down radio stations. He has nationalized oil companies, and they are no longer as profitable as they were.
I told you before I have been there, done that, seen the people, LONG before Hugo "the clown" Chavez infested the high political office he does now. There is no question that Venezuelans are much worse off now than before.
If you REALLY THINK confiscating property is something benign and transcendental and beneficent, I invite you to get your Aussie @$$ over hear and try confiscating mine ... and I will show you what the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights is all about.
Sometimes I think you are deliberatly naive and have a bunch of rocks in your skull. Do you REALLY like tyrants? You REALLY think what I've described above is GOOD THING????
If so, then may God help you...........
-
Chavez's upcoming election sounds pretty fair. The state-run media is saying that his opponent is corrupt, is a homosexual, and a "Zionist agent". State-run TV ran a program that said that Mr. Capriles (Chavez's opponent) was caught having sex with another man in a car. Right before the primaries, the host of a show on government-run TV said that Capriles "used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges" after the 2000 car incident.
I'd say that was pretty corrupt, but it's probably mild compared to what Obama's going to do.
-
Chavez's upcoming election sounds pretty fair. The state-run media is saying that his opponent is corrupt, is a homosexual, and a "Zionist agent". State-run TV ran a program that said that Mr. Capriles (Chavez's opponent) was caught having sex with another man in a car. Right before the primaries, the host of a show on government-run TV said that Capriles "used his influence to force police to drop indecency charges" after the 2000 car incident.
I'd say that was pretty corrupt, but it's probably mild compared to what Obama's going to do.
Wait a second there - alleging that he's sexually deviant and corrupt aren't state media stories, those are what Chavez himself and his party are saying.
How's that different from what was said about the clintons??? And how is it tyrannical???
This is the thing - I keep seeing the labels thrown about left and right, but examples of actually tyrannical behaviour fail to materialize.
Tommygunn, I'm an American, and no, I don't think land seizures make a country more miserable than land barons who use their wealth to buy officials and market drugs. It's hard to shed tears for the farms seized by Chavez when you have a quick look at how those people acquired their property in the first place.
A side note, one of Chavez's most popular initiatives is to recognise land title to homes built without government permits - he was going through poorer urban areas that had been built without approval from corrupt planning officials and recognizing the moral rights to ownership of those homes.
But don't count that as anything other than bad! He seized a few millionares farms, so he's obviously ruining his country. Or not.
-
Tommygunn, I'm an American, and no, I don't think land seizures make a country more miserable than land barons who use their wealth to buy officials and market drugs. It's hard to shed tears for the farms seized by Chavez when you have a quick look at how those people acquired their property in the first place.
A side note, one of Chavez's most popular initiatives is to recognise land title to homes built without government permits - he was going through poorer urban areas that had been built without approval from corrupt planning officials and recognizing the moral rights to ownership of those homes.
But don't count that as anything other than bad! He seized a few millionares farms, so he's obviously ruining his country. Or not.
Well I guess he must be a wonderful humanitarian then. Why don't you go live in Venezuela. I'm sure there are NO corrupt officials in Aussieland to sell land cheap to bazillionaire land barons.
No matter how you cut it the guy is a political thug.
Remember that Mussolini got the trains running on time and Al Capone set up soup kitchens in Chicago during the depression. Both of those were thugs of one type or another.
Sure he is far from throwing Jews in ovens like Hitler, but he's still a **** socialist and there is little good in that.
The fact he isn't as nasty of a socialist as Hitler was can perhaps be explained by the fact that he's too busy being a downright NUTTY one he doesn't have energy left over for anything more serious. EG, the @ssh@t speech he gave at the UN after Dubya, when he whined about the smell of sulpher still being there. Good grief.
There are far better political leaders -- even in South America.
-
DeSelby, is the Huffington Post far enough left for you to consider a reliable source? I hope so. Here you go:
CARACAS, Venezuela — Prominent Jewish groups urged President Hugo Chavez on Friday to prevent what they called anti-Semitic attacks on the opposition's presidential candidate by Venezuelan state media.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned a column that described the Jewish ancestry of opposition leader Henrique Capriles Radonski and labeled him a secret follower of Zionism, which it called "the most rotten sentiments represented by humanity."
The New York-based Anti-Defamation League also voiced concern.
"Blatant and persistent anti-Semitism is used by President Chavez and his government apparatus as a divisive political tool," Abraham Foxman, the organization's director, said in a statement.
"What we are seeing at the outset of Venezuela's presidential elections is an attempt to cast the opposition candidate as a 'traitorous Jew' who is unworthy of the presidency," Foxman said.
The column written by Adal Hernandez was posted on the website of state-run Radio Nacional de Venezuela on Monday.
Mario Silva, a staunch Chavez ally who hosts a late-night talk show on state television called "La Hojilla," or "The Razor Blade," recently suggested that Capriles is gay.
Citing an alleged police report, Silva said police officers spotted Capriles engaged in a sexual act with another man. Capriles denied the accusation.
-
Dick, I doubt it matters.
The Harrison Bergeron mindset that is at the core of most leftists means they'll always eventually turn on the Jews once enough power is attained. Some of the antisemitism seen at the 99% rallies is case in point.
Of course, the persecution of Jews in actual Communist states is well documented too.
Jews in America tend to lean Left, because (with notable exceptions of course) they associate (incorrectly) all things politically Right with the Holocaust, and they desperately want to believe in the facade of tolerance that the Left cloaks itself in. Of course, once the class-warfare rhetoric begins in earnest, the Jews, who traditionally always do "better than average" because of their networking, emphasis on education, and their general cultural practices and expectations for themselves and their families... Puts them right in the cross hairs.
-
There's also the inherent mistrust Jewish culture has of the common man.
The idea is that pogroms/the new holocaust/whatever can start off ANY MINUTE NOW.
As such we should not have, say, gun ownership. Because we will be shot with these guns once the pogroms start.
This is of course stupid. It is double-stupid when applied in Israel.
-
Interesting article on Argentina.
http://www.economist.com/node/21548242
Looking to left wing authoritarian Chavez in Venezuela or Argentina who is currently experiencing hyper inflation may not be the best economic advice.
PriceStats, a specialist provider of inflation rates which produces figures for 19 countries that are published by State Street, a financial services firm, puts the annual rate at 24.4% and cumulative inflation since the beginning of 2007 at 137%.
http://www.economist.com/node/21548229
-
Them's Jimmy Carter numbers, Ron. Maybe we should ask him for advice.
-
Interesting article on Argentina.
http://www.economist.com/node/21548242
Looking to left wing authoritarian Chavez in Venezuela or Argentina who is currently experiencing hyper inflation may not be the best economic advice.
http://www.economist.com/node/21548229
Argentina cant be in trouble - if they were, their Government would be hyping up the Falklands dispute for all its worth in a desperate attempt to decoy the masses away from noticing that their leaders are ruining the national economy for at least the third time in the past thirty years. That is, after all, the SOP when it comes to political crises over there.
Oh.
-
Monkeyleg, I was attempting to agree with you, emphasizing that the Government itself was making those accusations - and the point stands, which is, what's the difference between that and our campaigns??? They're not exactly soviet tactics.
Compare inflation numbers now to those prior to Chavez ( when the currency regulations weren't as tight )
Tommy, you keep flipping out about his land grabs, but ignore that he's cut poverty in half. How many people would rather be starving but know that wealthy south American landlords were holding on to their mostly ill gotten lands??? What kind of measure are you using to determine that theyre all now worse off??
-
The Soviet Union had economic growth. Under Brezhnev, the life quality of Soviet citizens improved visibly, and was certainly higher than under the Czar.
And yet, does anybody doubt the USSR would have been better off as a free-market democracy?
-
The Soviet Union had economic growth. Under Brezhnev, the life quality of Soviet citizens improved visibly, and was certainly higher than under the Czar.
And yet, does anybody doubt the USSR would have been better off as a free-market democracy?
What do we mean by "free market democracy" there? Do we mean simple nonintervention by government in the economy? If so we have plenty of examples of that failing miserably, to the extent that it makes the USSR look like a prosperous alternative.
The US economy has grown the most in times of huge expansions of Government spending and intervention - there are people who say it would have been even bigger without, but strangely sustained growth never manages to correlate with non-intervention or large spending cuts.
-
De Selby I don't give a flipping wollop of a dab of spit hitting a leaf if he's doubled or quadrupled Venzuela's wealth it doesn't justify robbery.
You don't get it do you? I HATE socialists and communists. They're some of the most dangerous predators on the face of the planet. In their commie form they've killed more innocent people than any other whacko including Hitler.
You know....maybe after grabbing all that land he actually has made Venezuela rich. God knows he NEEDS that money for all thos Kalashnikovs he's bought 'cause you know the Bad Ol' US of A is gonna invade sooner or later.
You REALLY think it's ok to justify enriching coffers through theft?
So if you steal from a theif, it's OK, because the theif stole it first?
How the *** do you know??
I have enough problems with the jackwagons, asshats, goons, thugs, jerks, incompetents and dingbats who pass themselves off as politicians here in the United States. I have less tolerance for the dirtbags in other nations who steal from "rich" people and give the proceeds to the poor to make themselves powerful and beneficient in the eyes of the sheeple they lord over. It's bad enough when the people who have to live in such a country buy the tyrant's kool aide, I mean people have been doing that since the beginning of time.
What I don't get is when supposedly intelligent people (even if they live in upside-down land with weird animals) start buying that kool aide.
Then again a lot of people loved Al Capone .... his soup kitchens fed a lot of people during the depression..........
-
What do we mean by "free market democracy" there? Do we mean simple nonintervention by government in the economy? If so we have plenty of examples of that failing miserably, to the extent that it makes the USSR look like a prosperous alternative.
The US economy has grown the most in times of huge expansions of Government spending and intervention - there are people who say it would have been even bigger without, but strangely sustained growth never manages to correlate with non-intervention or large spending cuts.
Yes it does we did very well before BIG Government came along. As for big spending helping FDR tried to spend our way out of the Great Depression and that didn't work. We've been over this before DeSelby....guess you've forgotten the lesson.
-
What do we mean by "free market democracy" there? Do we mean simple nonintervention by government in the economy? If so we have plenty of examples of that failing miserably, to the extent that it makes the USSR look like a prosperous alternative.
The US economy has grown the most in times of huge expansions of Government spending and intervention - there are people who say it would have been even bigger without, but strangely sustained growth never manages to correlate with non-intervention or large spending cuts.
I remember 25 years of sustained growth quite recently.
-
De Selby I don't give a flipping wollop of a dab of spit hitting a leaf if he's doubled or quadrupled Venzuela's wealth it doesn't justify robbery.
You don't get it do you? I HATE socialists and communists. They're some of the most dangerous predators on the face of the planet. In their commie form they've killed more innocent people than any other whacko including Hitler.
You'll probably like this then:
China is to overhaul the sometimes threatening slogans used to enforce its one-child policy, the authorities have announced.
Details of the project were published in the Chinese communist party newspaper, the People's Daily.
State media blamed local officials for coming up with phrases such as, "If you don't get sterilised, your house will be demolished"
They said they would be replaced by friendlier expressions.
But they insisted that the one-child policy itself would not change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17181951
-
I remember 25 years of sustained growth quite recently.
When was that, and what was the federal budget like?
-
Tommy, I'm not sure what is your point is anymore - you started about by saying Venezuelans are worse off, now you're saying you don't care if they're twice as rich. Is this about outcomes for real people or about your emotional attachment to an ideology?
-
De Selby, stop trying to hyper analyze everything. I said they're worse off; I don't think you can steal wealth from one segment of society and "spread it around" and make everyone richer.
There's an old bromide that if you steal from Peter to pay Paul you can count on the support of a lot of Pauls. The happy Pauls might even provide an illusion of wealth -- for awhile.
Robbing land from "rich people" to give proceeds to the poor may improve the outcome for ... "real people" just like Capone's soup kitchen helped "real people" and helped their ...."outcomes", but Capone was nonetheless a criminal, and a murderer.
"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel." ~~ Ayn Rand.
If you can find a book called "America's Thirty Year War," by Balint Vazsonyi you may understand something of socialism and communism. Mr. Vazsonyi grew up in that system before he made it to America. It'll give you some good insights for sure....
-
Rank and file Germans were a lot better off too when some charismatic pseudo-socialist lifted them out of the mess that was Weimar. Give Hugo time.
-
Rank and file Germans were a lot better off too when some charismatic pseudo-socialist lifted them out of the mess that was Weimar. Give Hugo time.
You sure know how to comfort a guy, French..... [tinfoil]
-
DeSelby, from Reagan on through the end of W's second term we experienced significant economic growth despite the profligate spending of government at all levels, especially the Fed.
Before the Obama administration it was more difficult to argue that point as those on the left would point to that spending and claim it was the reason for our economic growth.
Now with Bush&Obama's unprecedented act of spending more money in one bill than any presidents entire term, all to see anemic growth, continued high unemployment and growing dependency on .gov, that argument has been shown to be the lie it is.
Governments cannot spend and tax an economy into economic health.
-
Spending fell after WW2 [and yet the economy grew], as well as during the years of Bush v1.0 and Clinton. It is not important to argue who was responsible, but it did occur.
Economic deregulation occured under Carter, Reagan and Clinton.
...of course, under De Selby's argument, the economy can only be improved by ever-expanding state spending. Wouldn't we eventually get to 100% spending-to-GDP ratio, then?
-
I do believe that's the objective.
-
The 1990's were a period of relatively low government intervention, yet the tech boom gave us one of the best periods of economic growth in the 20th century. There was also the "peace dividend" from the collapse of the USSR that helped keep spending down, but which later raised the cost of government.
I can't think of a time when big government spending coincided with a booming economy. If you want to cite WWII, go ahead, but it was borrowed money fueling the economy. Not the same thing.
-
BTW.......how are things in Greece?......
-
Quiet before the storm.
-
The 1990's were a period of relatively low government intervention, yet the tech boom gave us one of the best periods of economic growth in the 20th century. There was also the "peace dividend" from the collapse of the USSR that helped keep spending down, but which later raised the cost of government.
I can't think of a time when big government spending coincided with a booming economy. If you want to cite WWII, go ahead, but it was borrowed money fueling the economy. Not the same thing.
Booming economy led to increased tax revenue plus reduced defense spending allowed increases elsewhere.
Didn't the same thing happen in the 80's? Tax revenue doubled over about 6 or 8 years and govt spending went up accordingly.
-
Booming economy led to increased tax revenue plus reduced defense spending allowed increases elsewhere.
Yes, and the boom was largely due to the explosion of the PC market and the internet, with sales of hardware and software driving it, and the government had nothing to do with it (except for Al Gore, of course). The best thing that can be said for Bill Clinton is that he didn't get in the way too much.
The reductions in defense spending, while helping spur the economy, bit us in the butt later in the Middle East. It's a classic pattern for all nations: draw down the military, and find yourself at war a few years later with an aggressor who thinks you're weak.
-
BTW.......how are things in Greece?......
Just peachy! They are getting ready for another 5 years of spending!
-
The 1990's were a period of relatively low government intervention, yet the tech boom gave us one of the best periods of economic growth in the 20th century. There was also the "peace dividend" from the collapse of the USSR that helped keep spending down, but which later raised the cost of government.
I can't think of a time when big government spending coincided with a booming economy. If you want to cite WWII, go ahead, but it was borrowed money fueling the economy. Not the same thing.
The '60s? NASA? There is always some dividend from big spending--whether on war materiel or getting to the moon--the question is how much a dividend for how much outlay, no? And what are the unforeseen and unintended consequences? For the benefits we get from government "investment" we might have gotten far more from non-investment and non-control, letting the private sector thrive by itself.