[Samseau]

After years of denial, Spain finally accepts a bailout package from who knows what.

I think it's obvious at this point that Europe cannot afford to maintain the same levels of government spending they currently have. They will have to cut tons of social services or risk bankruptcy.

But look at Greece. They've been getting bailouts for almost two years and they still have not cut any of their spending.

Yet another failed case of socialism.


What do you guys think? Will the Euro die before 2013? 2014? Will the dollar take such a hit in the ensuing defaults that America will need another bailout?

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

If the Germany (i.e. Mrs. Merkel) continues insisting on this foolish austerity for everyone, the entire €urozone is going to implode by the next summer.

As tempting as it is to believe, this is not a failed case of socialism. Spain ran a budget surplus and had very low debt before the crisis. All of its current problems are inflicted by the European Union's shortsighted focus on austerity and its inability to devalue its currency (since it doesn't have its own currency), thus sending it spiraling down a negative economic cycle. Your economy contracting sharply from cutting the government in recession results in your sovereign debt suddenly becoming much larger than if you had ran an economic stimulus and taken out additional debt. All economic models reliably support this, as well as the expected result that Spain, Greece, Ireland and C.O. got after years of cutting.

Greece did run itself into its initial problems by spending too much and racking up too much debt, and Ireland too by excessive gambling by its banks, and that debt should be paid off, but recessions are not the time to pay it off. Debt is paid off by saving from growth (something that should be legally instituted, I agree), not by cutting. The austerity approach that the EU has taken during the last 2 years has magnified the problems a hundredfold.

I agree that the Euro might be doomed, but it has nothing to do with socialism. And for all of USA's currently superior position (due to the limited stimulus + quantitative easing + primary world currency with lowest interest rates), if it continues on its current path of doing nothing it will soon be its turn as well.

[Samseau]

(06-09-2012 06:55 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

If the Germany (i.e. Mrs. Merkel) continues insisting on this foolish austerity for everyone, the entire €urozone is going to implode by the next summer.

As tempting as it is to believe, this is not a failed case of socialism. Spain ran a budget surplus and had very low debt before the crisis.

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about man. There wasn't any Austerity in Europe.

Instead of following Mainstream media bullshit, just look at the actual numbers as reported by the governments:



Don't listen to mainstream sources man, follow Zerohedge when it comes to finance.

Fact is, Europe has been preeching Austerity but it's only lip service. Had they done actual Austerity they wouldn't be in this mess.


Now they have to do bailouts because they refused to drop any spending even though they are at or near all time highs.

Bailouts are basically a response to the overwhelming demand for more government services, which are always too expensive, which means more bailouts.

Heartbreaking I know. Socialism has always been a failure. Any country that even remotely veers in the socialist directly usually fails at one point or another.

And before the socialist fanboys talk about Sweeden, Norway, etc. - remember that those countries have had the least immigration out of all socialist countries. So if you want socialism to work, you must ban diversity.

Socialism + Nationalism = mediocre countries where the living is easy (i.e. Denmark)

Socialism + Diversity = Bankruptcy

Capitalism + Diversity = USA from 19th to 20th centuries i.e. most powerful country in the world (USA had more immigration than any other country in the world during these times)

Capitalism + Nationalism = Hong Kong (not exactly a poor place, and it still took in a ton of immigrants who got in there illegally... but they never gave them any welfare)


Although, part of the liberal enterprise is to have diversity AND socialism, so I expect to see Norway/Sweeden/etc. to go bankrupt in the coming years/decades. Just like Spain and Greece have, due to overwhelming numbers of immigrants draining the system.


Note that this has nothing to do with RACE. It has to do with the fact that immigrants who decide to leave their country are almost always poor people looking for a better standard of living.

Giving handouts to every poor person who walks over the border = bankruptcy.

[speakeasy]

Samseau, I think that's a bit much. You are essentially saying immigrants to Europe are the reason for the financial meltdown of the Eurozone. How many immigrants end up in Greece? Greece is about 95% ethnic Greeks. Germany has a lot of immigrants and its economy is strong. I think you are trying to make connections where there are none.

[tomtud]

IMHO, their lifestyles arent sustainable. Hence, there will be further debt to pay for it. What are they going to produce for consumers to buy and export? Immigration? That is the wrong policy as European countries value their identities and the immigrants have failed to integrate into societies. ( blame whoever).

Greece has many issues.
Spain the same.

Let's keep this simple. When was the time that America was the apple of the world. When it was on its ascendency? I am sure most would say in the 1950s 60s. I would agree. Perhaps America should go back to that time to learn about their fiscal, tax and foreign policies. Same for Spain and examine when they recently had an equilibrium in society ( financially).

I am skeptical of the whole eurozone marriage. Business partnerships for the most part always end in a breakup. Here is no different.

[el mechanico]

This guy knows the score..

[AntiTrace]

All this talk makes me realize how stupid I really am. 'Merica!

[Vicious]

Samseau, it's very clear that you have dreamed a cause for the euro crisis and then trying to make everything pointing in that direction. The direct opposite of how rational thought should work.

Your info is off. Not off in the sense that you're missing valuable data but in the sense that you're so wrong that the stuff you're writing is directly misleading.

Socialism has very little to do with the euro crisis. In Greece and Italy corruption and lack of tax discipline are the major cause (and there dozens of minor ones). Spain is struggling with third world unemployment numbers. You could make a case that their respective governments overly generous grants have not correlated to diminishing returns and tax income, but you're not saying that you want Socialism to be the bad guy.

(06-09-2012 08:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Heartbreaking I know. Socialism has always been a failure. Any country that even remotely veers in the socialist directly usually fails at one point or another.

And before the socialist fanboys talk about Sweeden, Norway, etc. - remember that those countries have had the least immigration out of all socialist countries. So if you want socialism to work, you must ban diversity.

Nowhere near the truth. Sweden accepts some of the highest number of immigrants in Europe per capita. Norway is around the middles and Denmark and Finland are in the lows. Still there's no simple rule here that you can point to. You're just peddling a bunch of easy answers to sell your.

In fact, none of the countries you mention can be said to be pure "socialist" they all have some degree of market economy in their system.

Quote:

Although, part of the liberal enterprise is to have diversity AND socialism, so I expect to see Norway/Sweeden/etc. to go bankrupt in the coming years/decades. Just like Spain and Greece have, due to overwhelming numbers of immigrants draining the system.

Laughable. The Scandinavian countries are currently loaning money to the US. The amount of cash reserve and security in real assets in Scandinavia have made it sail through the Euro crisis virtually unscathed. While the current wave of immigrants undoubtedly are finances it's ignorant to say that these countries are just shelling out upkeep for them. Pick up any copy of The Economist and you'll see mention in just about every Euro crisis article about how Scandinavia has tackled this challenge favourably.

Sorry Samseau I generally hold your game postings in high esteem but this post has little to do with the reality of the situation. Too shallow, too red scare.

[Samseau]

(06-09-2012 08:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Samseau, I think that's a bit much. You are essentially saying immigrants to Europe are the reason for the financial meltdown of the Eurozone. How many immigrants end up in Greece? Greece is about 95% ethnic Greeks. Germany has a lot of immigrants and its economy is strong. I think you are trying to make connections where there are none.

I don't blame immigrants, I blame socialism. But honestly, who cares about the blame game?

I'm more interested in trying to guess the next moves of these countries. Much more fun.


However, just to let you know: The Greek girl I was dating for the past three months told me all about Greece's problems. She said the #1 reason for her country's decline was because of the massive influx of immigrants. She said that Greece was the gateway for immigrants to get into the rest of Europe.

Her words, not mine.

I looked up the demographics of Greece on Wikipedia, but they only have stats up to 2006. Even then, the figure was 93.76% Greek.

My guess is that Greek's makeup 90% of the population since 2006, judging from my Greek girlfriend's (who was from Athens, where a ton of minorities live) hostile reaction to immigration.

But you got to realize, that Greece's economy is really fucked up in ways that's hard to comprehend. There's so much corruption, it is insane. My friend said he got his driver's license by paying his driver instructor a bribe. People routinely skip paying taxes through bribes, etc.

Greece is an example of a socialist economy that fails even without immigration. They granted the Gov too much power and officials have abused it grotesquely.

(06-09-2012 09:43 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

This guy knows the score..

Fucking hilarious. Now we're talking. Even though the guy is joking, there's a lot of truth about what he's saying.

[joehoya]

As Vicious noted, in the case of Italy and Greece a significant part of the problem was corruption and lack of tax discipline. This problem was allowed to continue and even exacerbated due to lending policies in which Greece, as a Eurozone member, was treated as being the exact same credit risk as Germany. The thinking was that since Germany would not allow a member country to default on its debt (a premiss that appears less valid every day), any debt incurred by a Eurozone member country was backed by Germany, and those should be given interest rates comparable to Germany.

In the case of Greece, it is astonishing how corrupt and mismanaged their tax collection system was. Simply put, a HUGE portion of the taxes was just not being collected. However, this was not considered an urgent problem since the Greeks could essentially borrow money at a ridiculously cheap interest rate. So rather than address their revenue shortfall because of poor tax collection they simply borrowed money to pay for services. Furthermore, the government concealed these massive deficits through (IMHO) outright fraud.

Even today, a large problem is that they cannot collect all of the taxes necessary. The infrastructure for tax collection is so damaged from so many years of neglect and corruption that it is almost impossible to spin up a quality system quickly. Tax evasion has almost become a cultural norm. I recently read a report that when a tax collector came to one town THE LOCAL RADIO STATION BROADCASTED HIS LICENSE PLATE to give the people in the town a heads up. Many businesses are demanding that all transactions be made in cash not credit cards, to avoid leaving a paper trail for tax collection.

If Greece had been an independent state, this problem would not have gotten nearly as bad. Lenders would have paid MUCH more attention to Greece's fiscal health, and it is actually unlikely that the deception regarding the deficit could have taken place.

[Samseau]

Vicious Wrote:

Socialism has very little to do with the euro crisis. In Greece and Italy corruption and lack of tax discipline are the major cause (and there dozens of minor ones). Spain is struggling with third world unemployment numbers.

Can't you see the direct cause between socialism and government corruption? I think it is obvious. A common feature of human nature is to abuse power.

Socialism grants massive powers to the government. The government then abuses its power.

In Spain, bad government policies must make it impossible or heavily disincentivized for companies to form businesses there, which means people can't get a job.

Quote:

Nowhere near the truth. Sweden accepts some of the highest number of immigrants in Europe per capita. Norway is around the middles and Denmark and Finland are in the lows. Still there's no simple rule here that you can point to. You're just peddling a bunch of easy answers to sell your.

All of this is recent, within the last ten years or so. It hasn't been enough time before real immigration issues start to crop up.

Quote:

In fact, none of the countries you mention can be said to be pure "socialist" they all have some degree of market economy in their system.

"The dose which hath make the poison"

In other words, there's only so much socialist policies a country can take, depending on it's cultural nuances, before the real bankruptcy issues settle in.

Quote:

Laughable. The Scandinavian countries are currently loaning money to the US. The amount of cash reserve and security in real assets in Scandinavia have made it sail through the Euro crisis virtually unscathed.

That's because they were some of the richest countries to began with. They ran a tight ship at home, and even with socialist policies they kept it all under budget.

But, given their new path, this will change.

Quote:

Sorry Samseau I generally hold your game postings in high esteem but this post has little to do with the reality of the situation. Too shallow, too red scare.

No worries man. I never take anything said in a discussion about politics personally, a trait I wish more Americans would share.

[Keyser Söze]

(06-10-2012 04:08 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 08:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Samseau, I think that's a bit much. You are essentially saying immigrants to Europe are the reason for the financial meltdown of the Eurozone. How many immigrants end up in Greece? Greece is about 95% ethnic Greeks. Germany has a lot of immigrants and its economy is strong. I think you are trying to make connections where there are none.

I don't blame immigrants, I blame socialism. But honestly, who cares about the blame game?

I'm more interested in trying to guess the next moves of these countries. Much more fun.


However, just to let you know: The Greek girl I was dating for the past three months told me all about Greece's problems. She said the #1 reason for her country's decline was because of the massive influx of immigrants. She said that Greece was the gateway for immigrants to get into the rest of Europe.

Her words, not mine.

I looked up the demographics of Greece on Wikipedia, but they only have stats up to 2006. Even then, the figure was 93.76% Greek.

My guess is that Greek's makeup 90% of the population since 2006, judging from my Greek girlfriend's (who was from Athens, where a ton of minorities live) hostile reaction to immigration.

But you got to realize, that Greece's economy is really fucked up in ways that's hard to comprehend. There's so much corruption, it is insane. My friend said he got his driver's license by paying his driver instructor a bribe. People routinely skip paying taxes through bribes, etc.

Greece is an example of a socialist economy that fails even without immigration. They granted the Gov too much power and officials have abused it grotesquely.

With all due respect to your xenophobic Greek lizard's skills of economic analysis, immigration did not cause Greece's problems. Greece has managed to go bankrupt 5 or 6 times in the past 150 years, regardless of immigration.

The problem with Greece is not that they granted the government too much power, it is that the power of the government was concentrated and perverted by an aristocratic political class. There are also oligarchs who paid no taxes and kept billions abroad and used the political class as its pawns. To shut people up while they were busy looting the country, the politicians and oligarchs used political patronage to buy off groups of supporters. Meanwhile, all of Greek's best capital, both human and financial, was either underdeveloped or taken out of the country.

That is what lies at the root of this. Keep government strong, but make it transparent, let sunlight shine in and reveal the rot at the core so it can be fixed.

Throw the oligarchs and polticians in jail, confiscate their assets, and make sure the system is fair.

That is the answer.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Very interesting graph, Samseau. Admittedly, I had lots of doubts about its sources, so I went to Eurostat to check but could find only data on deficits, not actual budgets. They are available on the respective countries' websites for financial ministries, though. Assuming that this Tyler Durden has gathered everything correctly, I am still asking, how is that possible? The deficits are becoming larger and larger, and the layoffs, tax increases and spending cuts are very real. Why would all those people be protesting if they still had jobs, i.e. if nothing was cut? I don't think they would!

My only explanation for that graph is that the "spending" represented in it actually includes the spiraling costs (interest rates) of servicing the debt, so even though the budget revenues stay the same, paying off the interest raises the budget size (and deficits, since you need to take out additional debt to service the old one). I'll have to research this more, thanks for the information.

With all that said, however, I still don't agree about socialism. First of all, during recessions, the so called "handouts" from unemployment benefits, transfers and etc are the only thing that keeps the economy from drowning even faster - it's called "automatic stabilizers" and I think it's a good thing. Sure, giving out handouts above what you can reasonably pay is a problem that needs to be solved (along with excessive immigration) because it will slowly become a burden, but it is a problem that is not relevant to the debt crisis.

The debt markets and interest rates react ONLY to your GDP and growth prospects (and thus your ability to pay off debts in the future), not your existing debt or your country's level of socialism. That is why Japan has had levels of debt between 100 and 200% of GDP for decades now, and still borrows at extremely low rates. The markets don't care about socialism, only about growth prospects. However, if you cut excessively (such as during a recession), you ruin your growth prospects. I am convinced that Paul Krugman (who pioneered the term, I believe) had it right when he said that it was the "confidence fairy" at work - the pervasive, economically unsupported and unscientific myth that cutting the government and reducing deficit will lead to lower interest rates.

To what Keyser Soze said about Greece, I agree wholeheartedly, but with the caveat that even if all of those measures were performed and the corruption 100% eradicated, Greece would still go bankrupt very soon - its situation is that bad right now. The EU first has to stop digging the Greek hole even deeper (by pushing austerity that shrinks the economy further, which in turn sends interest rates skyrocketing), or no amount of extra tax collection will help. Unfortunately, while ECB could have saved the day by acting as lender of last resort before (at the cost of some joint inflation throughout the Eurozone - note that inflation is anemic right now, fluttering) between 2 and -0.5% so definitely not worrisome), I fear it is too late now.

With all that said, I do believe that Euro zone's structural defects are immense, and unless real integration occurs soon (i.e. ECB as lender of last resort + debt mutualisation + some degree of fiscal integration), the Euro is doomed to fail. It is simply impossible to sustain that many countries with wildly different productiveness rates, wages, budgets and markets while eliminating all of their monetary freedom (i.e. the ability to have its own currency that can appreciate or depreciate freely).

[Lemmo]

(06-09-2012 06:55 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Capitalism + Diversity = USA from 19th to 20th centuries i.e. most powerful country in the world (USA had more immigration than any other country in the world during these times)

Not true. The period of America's greatest economic dominance was a period during which America was least diverse (1920s-1965). During this time illegal Mexicans were routine rounded up and expelled and legal immigrants were limited to a small number, most of which were required to come from Northwest Europe. The only period of diverse immigration in US history (1965-) has been the period to greatest relative decline.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(06-10-2012 08:22 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 06:55 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Capitalism + Diversity = USA from 19th to 20th centuries i.e. most powerful country in the world (USA had more immigration than any other country in the world during these times)

Not true. The period of America's greatest economic dominance was a period during which America was least diverse (1920s-1965). During this time illegal Mexicans were routine rounded up and expelled and legal immigrants were limited to a small number, most of which were required to come from Northwest Europe. The only period of diverse immigration in US history (1965-) has been the period to greatest relative decline.

Psssst! I didn't write that! Samseau did
I agree that Capitalism + Diversity is generally good for the economy, though, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[kosko]

I have done a lot of research on this topic for it seems like the past year now. I have to do dig up my notes but I just have one things t osay about imigration. It is a weak strawman to go after immigration being the sole reason of a natiosn regression.

You are trying to blame the most marginalzied group of people with the else poltical and economic capital in western nations? Really?

The immigrint argument is weak. Its a last ditch effort from European nations to throw somebody under the bus other then "themselves". It plays to ethnic and nationalistic sentimints by simply stating: It "there" fault. If we limit thier rights or expel them we can simply make bigger pie peices for ourselfs to spread around."

Right.

Even though in many nations its expact and immigrints workers whom are the only ones doing any legitimate work. In the UK, the most completly fucked nation IMO financially- which has no real economy what so ever - is dependnent on immigrant labor to push along the ogar that is called the UK economy. Take away the casino speculation that exsists withen The City and the UK economy is completely flat.

Same goes for the Netherlands in which finding concrete stats on thier economy and how it is justified begin the 16th largest in the world is tough. Netherlands is nothing but a monarch-plutocracy with hands on the purse . Its top exports are sectors which make up not even 8% of their GDP (petroleum products and foodstuffs) yet they have the 16th largest economy in the world? Huh? Where is the other 90% if nothing tangible represents it?

The immigrtion problem is a debt problem. You see that fiat money has plunged these nations into the abyss not opening thier borders. They are correlated but not for reasons that you think.

For nations to expand thier debt they need more taxpayers/citiziens/ or servants if your in the UK lol. This can only be done via immigration (birth rates are in negative territory in most western nations). This is why you see trends of exploding (or exploitative IMO) immigration in the 70's. With both Washington led policies in place of destroying third world economies while new blocks we're set up to deal expliclity only with the debt/fiat monetary model. I.E. The G8, The destruction of Gold Standard, IMF & WB empowerment, the prvitization of G8 central banks, etc. This all happend at the same time. Nations we're required to expand the population base to aquire more (private external) debt to expand Govt, and increase profits for the wealthiest. This started the process of the downward spiral because nations started to cut spending, cut revenues, to simply just borrow the difference. Deficit or budget cuts simply just make larger deficits and you started the downward plunge to the current situation we see here.

You don't balance your books by taking a knife and cutting of the limbs of the state. Its a fools argument to try and justify this. It is not based in reality all it does it require the expansion of outside debt to fund or fill the gaps.

This is why I always say Western Nations are on thier way out. They have to much debt and YOU as a citizen will ahve to pay it. If your countries debt is 100K plus per person then get ready to pay a preety penny. To hammer in my point though go look at the most "closed" Countries whom follow an exclusive western monatary policy and look a thier Debt-to-GDP ratio per capita you will see that most difficult nations to get into have the highest levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...ernal_debt

Aside from the outliers of the UK and Netherlands on that list which again has no real economies and are based in outer space.

Adjust the chart and look at the top 10 countries. Then think to how difficult it is to become a Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Switzerland, or Monaco national. They have no ability to rapidly expand their money base and thus are simply known as havens for oligarchs and plutocrats to stuff money. These nations will never self-destruct financially, or be plunged into the abyss by war. The elite bankers whom go around cracking the bond markets of other nations would dear not plunge then action where most of their wealth is stored. If they followed the same ways as traditional western nations and encouraged and exploited immigration the debt obligations per capita would be much lower.

Do those top nations have debt problems? ye they borrow to much and have no real economies. But the difference is that they have created nations where the same exploitative vulture banks and elite whom prey on other nations reside or hold their wealth and thus these nations are safe. Where is the panic on Swiss or Luxemborg Bonds? A nation that produces nothing yet has debt into the stratosphere... think about it.

Political hacks simply just use the immigration debate to keep people in the dark. It was the people whom voted and and let these hacks run amok for decades and sat back as the phony "booms" of debt swelled the nations lifestyle to unrealistic levels.

In regards to Greece I will write that sheet later today but Greece is just a smoke screen. A tiny nation of olives and vacation islands with a economy smaller than Maryland. The Euro is begin dismantled by London and Wall Street bankers as a means to prop up the Pound and USD$ and keep going the ability of those nations to borrow money into oblivion. Global favor was leaning towards the Euro for reserve reasons. The new emerging nations such as China or Brazil we're limiting their USD$ exposure and going with the Euro.

The Eurozone was indeed faulty and full of holes which we're destined to burst open but the issue of pegging immigration, social spending, etc on the reasons on Greece downfall is not based in reality. The clear issue of Greece is the external debt help to speculative banks. Not the internal public debt.

[Samseau]

Kosko, not once did I blame immigration. I blamed Socialism for the exploding deficits, with immigration as a major contributing factor as immigrants exploit socialist systems (they consume more than they produce under socialist economies).

Keyser Wrote:

With all due respect to your xenophobic Greek lizard's skills of economic analysis, immigration did not cause Greece's problems. Greece has managed to go bankrupt 5 or 6 times in the past 150 years, regardless of immigration.

Did you read what I wrote?

Samseau Wrote:

Greece is an example of a socialist economy that fails even without immigration. They granted the Gov too much power and officials have abused it grotesquely.

Also,

Keyser Wrote:

That is what lies at the root of this. Keep government strong, but make it transparent, let sunlight shine in and reveal the rot at the core so it can be fixed.

This is a fantasy. It is human nature to abuse power. You cannot have an uncorrupted strong government. It will always be perverted with time.

Creepy Eel Wrote:

My only explanation for that graph is that the "spending" represented in it actually includes the spiraling costs (interest rates) of servicing the debt, so even though the budget revenues stay the same, paying off the interest raises the budget size (and deficits, since you need to take out additional debt to service the old one). I'll have to research this more, thanks for the information.

The charts take debt servicing into account, but also takes into account all levels of government; i.e. the local/municipal levels of spending.

Quote:

With all that said, however, I still don't agree about socialism. First of all, during recessions, the so called "handouts" from unemployment benefits, transfers and etc are the only thing that keeps the economy from drowning even faster - it's called "automatic stabilizers" and I think it's a good thing. Sure, giving out handouts above what you can reasonably pay is a problem that needs to be solved (along with excessive immigration) because it will slowly become a burden, but it is a problem that is not relevant to the debt crisis.

Government handouts are just a band-aid solution to the problems that the government creates.


First of all - it is the government that creates recessions. They allow people to make malinvestments (i.e. "take this subprime loan - it won't hurt you!), and then when enough people default on bad business decisions, the government comes in for the rescue - "Let us support you in these difficult times!"

Which has no direct effect on helping the economy, except to create more single moms.


Second of all, handouts don't consume much of the government. If the government only gave out assistance to citizens who were starving because they lost their job, then government spending would amount to peanuts.

But of course, that's not what governments spend their money on. They spend it on wars, they spend it on free healthcare, free education, a massive police network, a huge inefficient road system, taking care of old people, retards, single moms, mentally ill, etc. Basically anyone or anything they can think of.


Third, powerful governments create feminism. With all of the money and welfare spending, it eliminates the need for men in the family and "empowers" women to fuck alphas with impunity.

Quote:

That is why Japan has had levels of debt between 100 and 200% of GDP for decades now, and still borrows at extremely low rates.

Japan is completely fucked. You will see them implode within the next 10-20 years. The only reason they've been able to keep the ponzi going for so long is because they've brainwashed their citizens into buying the government debt, have almost eliminated immigration meaning all government spending goes directly back into the citizens pockets, and Japan's central bank is willing to print money at the drop of a hat to keep bond prices low.

America has only recently started doing the same thing regarding money printing.

The effects of Japan's monetary policies are disastrous; there's been almost zero growth there for the past two decades, suicide is off the charts, the people are crushed underneath a financial oligarchy that uses the people for their own gain, and both men and women have lost interest in reproduction because of how difficult it is to get a decent job or start a business in Japan.

[Samseau]

Lemmo Wrote:

Not true. The period of America's greatest economic dominance was a period during which America was least diverse (1920s-1965). During this time illegal Mexicans were routine rounded up and expelled and legal immigrants were limited to a small number, most of which were required to come from Northwest Europe. The only period of diverse immigration in US history (1965-) has been the period to greatest relative decline.

Between 1800-1930, America economy grew more than any other nation in the world, and took in more immigrants than any other nation in the world.

Immigration is not bad in of itself. The period of 1965 is when Johnson created the "Great Society" i.e. the enormous welfare state we have today that creates degenerates and single moms. The welfare programs were then abused by illegal immigrants as well, something that has been happening in America for at least 30 years now.

[Lemmo]

(06-10-2012 01:57 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Lemmo Wrote:

Not true. The period of America's greatest economic dominance was a period during which America was least diverse (1920s-1965). During this time illegal Mexicans were routine rounded up and expelled and legal immigrants were limited to a small number, most of which were required to come from Northwest Europe. The only period of diverse immigration in US history (1965-) has been the period to greatest relative decline.

Between 1800-1930, America economy grew more than any other nation in the world, and took in more immigrants than any other nation in the world.

Immigration is not bad in of itself. The period of 1965 is when Johnson created the "Great Society" i.e. the enormous welfare state we have today that creates degenerates and single moms. The welfare programs were then abused by illegal immigrants as well, something that has been happening in America for at least 30 years now.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Immigration pre-1900 was completely different from the post-1965 immigration the US received after dismantling its immigration system. Immigrants then were (i) leaving the most advanced countries in the world to come to a rural backwater, (ii) were middle class in their home country, (iii) had to commit for the long term since communications/methods of travel did not allow them to keep close ties to their home, (iv) came with knowledge they would have to work to support themselves and (v) homogenous compared to current immigrants - almost entirely European and primarily Northern European.

Modern immigration doesn't have any of these qualities and is "bad in of itself" unless you want the country to be a big charity for the third world.

But back on topic, I don't think immigrants (in the case of Europe) are the primary cause of the financial crisis. They are a huge burden on the system and cost a lot of money but the natives also racked up a lot of government debt through bloated public sectors, late retirement, excessive entitlements, etc.

[Keyser Söze]

Samseau, do think that human society would have created the amazing technological advances that lengthen and enrich our lives without having evolved governments based on highly centralized authority?

[kosko]

(06-10-2012 01:48 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Kosko, not once did I blame immigration. I blamed Socialism for the exploding deficits, with immigration as a major contributing factor as immigrants exploit socialist systems (they consume more than they produce under socialist economies).

Keyser Wrote:

With all due respect to your xenophobic Greek lizard's skills of economic analysis, immigration did not cause Greece's problems. Greece has managed to go bankrupt 5 or 6 times in the past 150 years, regardless of immigration.

Did you read what I wrote?

Samseau Wrote:

Greece is an example of a socialist economy that fails even without immigration. They granted the Gov too much power and officials have abused it grotesquely.

Also,

Keyser Wrote:

That is what lies at the root of this. Keep government strong, but make it transparent, let sunlight shine in and reveal the rot at the core so it can be fixed.

This is a fantasy. It is human nature to abuse power. You cannot have an uncorrupted strong government. It will always be perverted with time.

Creepy Eel Wrote:

My only explanation for that graph is that the "spending" represented in it actually includes the spiraling costs (interest rates) of servicing the debt, so even though the budget revenues stay the same, paying off the interest raises the budget size (and deficits, since you need to take out additional debt to service the old one). I'll have to research this more, thanks for the information.

The charts take debt servicing into account, but also takes into account all levels of government; i.e. the local/municipal levels of spending.

Quote:

With all that said, however, I still don't agree about socialism. First of all, during recessions, the so called "handouts" from unemployment benefits, transfers and etc are the only thing that keeps the economy from drowning even faster - it's called "automatic stabilizers" and I think it's a good thing. Sure, giving out handouts above what you can reasonably pay is a problem that needs to be solved (along with excessive immigration) because it will slowly become a burden, but it is a problem that is not relevant to the debt crisis.

Government handouts are just a band-aid solution to the problems that the government creates.


First of all - it is the government that creates recessions. They allow people to make malinvestments (i.e. "take this subprime loan - it won't hurt you!), and then when enough people default on bad business decisions, the government comes in for the rescue - "Let us support you in these difficult times!"

Which has no direct effect on helping the economy, except to create more single moms.


Second of all, handouts don't consume much of the government. If the government only gave out assistance to citizens who were starving because they lost their job, then government spending would amount to peanuts.

But of course, that's not what governments spend their money on. They spend it on wars, they spend it on free healthcare, free education, a massive police network, a huge inefficient road system, taking care of old people, retards, single moms, mentally ill, etc. Basically anyone or anything they can think of.


Third, powerful governments create feminism. With all of the money and welfare spending, it eliminates the need for men in the family and "empowers" women to fuck alphas with impunity.

Quote:

That is why Japan has had levels of debt between 100 and 200% of GDP for decades now, and still borrows at extremely low rates.

Japan is completely fucked. You will see them implode within the next 10-20 years. The only reason they've been able to keep the ponzi going for so long is because they've brainwashed their citizens into buying the government debt, have almost eliminated immigration meaning all government spending goes directly back into the citizens pockets, and Japan's central bank is willing to print money at the drop of a hat to keep bond prices low.

America has only recently started doing the same thing regarding money printing.

The effects of Japan's monetary policies are disastrous; there's been almost zero growth there for the past two decades, suicide is off the charts, the people are crushed underneath a financial oligarchy that uses the people for their own gain, and both men and women have lost interest in reproduction because of how difficult it is to get a decent job or start a business in Japan.

People have been saying Japan was going to explode 20 years ago. It still chugs along. Japan has always had a restritive and closed soceity. Before its forraays into expansionism into Asia during the 19th and early 10th century, it was the most isolated and protectionist Country in the world with the USA. Japan's downfall will be its demographics not its financial state. It has been in tatters for 20 years now but Japan still rolls along because it has been able to basically roll over and hedge upon itself, is it perfect? No of course not they will eventually tap out.

Socialism is not that problem. Nations can happily fund social programs if the tangible economy supports it. This is the issue. Debt is not tangible it is a anti-thisis of growth. The more debt a nation takes on that more its economy is in tatters. Look at the External Debt of nations and its GDP, they are almost roughly the same. Today majority of western style nations simply just borrow, there is so little of actual wealth being generated.

New Deal America was one of the two periods of the most prosperous times in American History with the Hamilton era (Hamilton was the first US sec of the Tresuray under Washington) coming in next. You need investments in your citizens, infrastructure and maintain your countries interests on the open market. America speared ahead because it was building more railroads, damns, airports, factories, highways then anybody else in the globe. with this investment in tangible structures capital followed to expand upon those structures that we're put in place.

If the tangible economy is sound it does not matter what the Govt spends on its people as its just a balance sheet wit surplus going into reserve. this is why Nations like Norway succeed or nations like Gadaffi Libya (forget your views on him as a leader) his third way of economic polices had a roboust social state with NO FOREIGN DEBT. The Govt was in surplus each year and provided evreything to its people. When nations have no goods to offer they simply just borrow into the abyss.

Govt and elite capital go hand in had. they dance to the same song. The State exploits its people to expand and grow. With each cut and slash to the budget, it takes on more debt.. expands and thus needs to cut and slash even more - wash, rinse, repeat. While the Captalists exploi off this by offering The State more and more Debt. They feed of each other, a tho headed monster eating its own tail.

To dispel it notion of a common goal for a collective nation state is to throw away the nation state all together. If a group of people whom can't collectively see that they need to support once of each other via the soils of their hard work you don't have a nation. You simply just have taxpayers and debtors with elites and a over-arching state. I.E. America.

Nations crumble form whiten when they fail to look after the next man and their neighbor.

Even in Hamilton times when a true "Free market" was present (the only time in American history). The Govt set the parimitors in which capital could expand and grow. Class was protected without Govt programs or policy (You could argue that this isn't a true free market.. which is correct but a "Free market" is a fallacy one can not truly exists without legitimacy granted to it from the state. Without that you simply just have a Casino like the UK).

Hamilton-era and New Deal America saw standards of living that we're better than today. Forget your Ipad and fuking dish washing machines. Techonlogy gives an impression of a increased standard of living when it simply just makes life easier. Ameirca in those two periods had more wealth per capita, as people owned stuff and had assets and re-distributed it back into the economy for growth.

So you can't say "socialism" is the problem. Socialism is a just a product of bad policy and exploitation. Debt is the issue and the inability to control the influx of debt. A nations obligation is to protect its intersts in the market and to protect its people, labour, educational capital, and children.

Nations whom do this prosper. The ones who don't flounder. Neo-Libya was the most advanced nation in Africa and had a high Human Delevelopment Index then many Eastern European nations. In 25 year it would of had a higher standard of living then most Western Nations. The facts don't lie.

Look around and as how much you own? Chinese TV's, Fiat money, or a Car from Europe don't count. Do you own assets? things with legitimate wealth? The answer will in most case be no. The biggest delusion is Govt and troll economists telling the myth that we are better off now. We own nothing and produce nothing we are definitely worse off. The wealth didn't vanish, it has always been there. It has just been sucked up into fewer hands that's all.


Socalism is the boogieman and a red herring. America is the most socialist state on earth. In America you 50 million of your residents depend on the Govt for food, and almost 80-100 depend on it for health care, your economy is centrally controlled with a Treasury manipulating interest rates (when the Govt controls how much its money is worth and not the market it is the definition of a planned economy), prices fixes via selective subsidies, and it has a mercantile war economy where it sets up proxies globally with exploit goal of that nation purchases tech and arms from the USA in return. This was no different from the British exploiting and forcing its colonies to trade rubber and tin with it to develop in its Factories back in the motherland. America needs to checks its self. Its the most "Socialist" of them all.

Social protections and Socialism are not the same thing. Its a nations obligation to protect its people and its its peoples interests.

And also Govt did not "invent" feminism. It simply only gave it legitimacy. Feminism was stated by rich oligarchs. The State sees Feminism in the same light as oligarchs as it enriches their power.

Also Govt does not create recessions. Recessions are created from a lack of money or now credit. The Great depression was caused by the limiting of credit not by the Govt. And again The State simply takes advantage of this by growing its scope. The Govt does not control the money or credit markets so how can you blame them for recessions? 2008 was caused by capitalists taking money off the market. They are still hoarding this money to this day, trillions and trillions of capital that has yet to reach credit markets.

[Hawk]

I must recognize I've had some fun with this thread. I was waiting to see the blame for the bail-out put on the Spaniards love of family or something like that, but I've been surprised by what I've found: my country labelled as Socialist!
Socialist (Social-Democrat) was my great-grandfather and he spent seven years in prison and forced labour as a result; Socialism was wiped out by 40 years of foreign-imposed dictatorship. Today, the central government is Christian-Democrat, as well as 14 out of 17 regional governments. And the only party in Parliament opposed to the bail-out has been... the Communist Party.
Actually, Government spending in Spain is quite low, 41.1% of GDP (USA: 38.9; UK: 47.3; Sweden: 52.5; France: 52.8); and social spending is the lowest in Western Europe.

You must take into account the peculiarities of the Spanish banking system: the bail-out is going mainly to the savings banks, not the commercial banks. The provincial savings banks have acted as the financial arm of the local elites, and they've financed lots of real estate developments; when the real estate bubble exploded, they were caught with their pants down.

Spain's future is gloomy. The euro has acted as a killer of the local industry, unable to compete with the Germans (as our only defense in the past was the devaluation of local currency). The local elites are acting more and more like 3rd world elites: they base their power on collaborating in the plundering of the country by foreign companies, rather than in developing it.

I leave an article in case someone is interested:

The crisis and fiscal policies in the peripheral countries of the eurozone: http://www.vnavarro.org/?p=6433&lang=en

[Hooligan Harry]

And all this theory counts for nothing because it never takes into account HUMAN NATURE.

Socialism and social democracy make sense on paper. They are theoretically sound and morally appealing hence the popularity and belief that they are just. But they are at complete odds with human nature and its why it will always fail. All you need a minuscule minority to reject the collective and it all comes crashing down eventually. Every single time, because the minority is a like a tumor that will grow and eventually kill the host.

Social democratic governments retain power through voters. By appealing to the voters they gain their votes and they retain power. The only way to retain voters is to give the people what they want and by taking the populist approach you can do that. Entitlements grow as a result, as does the size of the government required to manage those entitlements. And as the entitlements and government balloon in size, pockets begin to emerge where people start to exploit the system and no longer contribute to the collective. It inevitably reaches a tipping point where it becomes more feasible to sit than contribute for some, and as entitlements grow, the some become the many.

Gradually productivity wanes as the productive eject either through dwindling participation or by removing themselves completely, often through anger and resentment at what they feel is exploitation of the productive.

Government spending cannot be cut though, because to kill entitlements is to lose political power. So governments gradually increase taxes and try to redistribute more wealth in an effort to retain power. It inevitably reaches the point where it can no longer be sustained because governments go broke as productivity falls off a cliff and people start avoiding taxation.

Its only a small minority of citizens that exploit and abuse the system, but that minority begins to grow as the quality of entitlements offered grows over time(to win votes). The only way you can prop the system up is when the vast majority of the collective feels a connection to the collective as a whole, reducing the negative impact the small minority has. You have removed incentive, and the only genuine incentive left is one of civil cohesion within communities. Its all based on nothing more than peoples FEELINGS. The FEELING they have for the collective.

Which is where immigration comes in. The only successful social democracies had highly limited and restricted immigration policies after the war. Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand saw very little immigration from multicultural immigrants, hence why they have remained the only successful social democracies in the world for a long period of time. And again, the reason for that is the collective and human nature. By ensuring that people have a bond or direct connection to the collective, the minority who leech off the system remains smaller and more manageable.

What happens with immigration is that a greater portion of immigrants will abuse the system(not all, just a larger percentage), and in the process increase the size of the unproductive minority. There is no affinity or FEELING for the collective and as a result they feel less pressure to contribute. At the same time, many of the productive become disillusioned with the collective effort, believing their labour is being shared with an unproductive minority that has no genuine affinity or link to the collective at all. That results in a greater portion of the productive ejecting, further exacerbating the overall impact of the unproductive on the collective as a whole. Its amplified across the board.

The only way to alleviate the dissent that grows is for the government to redistribute further and pass more restrictive policy FORCING contributions from the existing productive members to sustain the ever growing unproductive segment of the economy. That leads to massive divides between class systems and class gaps begin to widen at an alarming rate. Its a snowball effect thats almost irreversible once its in motion, and its why you are seeing systemic collapse right across Europe as a whole.

Socialism without Nationalism will always fail for that reason. It erodes the only incentive that exists with collectives. FEELINGS. You cannot hope to build any longevity into the system without a strong sense of nationalism. There is no collective without unity and unity does not come when cultures and values are not shared systemically across the collective. Socialism as a whole fails when its democratic too. People vote for entitlements, which gradually increases the size of then unproductive and those who eject. Throw immigrants into the mix, the effect is amplified dramatically.

Social democracies will collapse. If nationalist, they take a lot longer. When there is no nationalism, the collapse will come quickly and rather dramatically, often leading to civil unrest and possibly civil war.

Diversity can only work and succeed in a capitalist system with limited government. It plays to human nature, where competition and success reward the productive. People are forced into productivity to maintain their place in the system, whereas with socialism people are forced into productivity to maintain the place of others in the system. One encourages personal responsibility, the other encourages dependence. One is based on the FEELINGS for the group, the other is based on nothing but action within the group regardless of feelings.

No true humanitarian can ever be a socialist if they truly understand socialism and what is required of people within socialist states to maintain them. Diversity, personal liberty and prosperity are unsustainable in any socialist system. On the surface, socialism is morally superior, but in reality its highly destructive and unsustainable, being at complete odds with human nature as a whole.

[thegmanifesto]

(06-10-2012 05:14 PM)Hawk Wrote:  

I must recognize I've had some fun with this thread. I was waiting to see the blame for the bail-out put on the Spaniards love of family or something like that, but I've been surprised by what I've found: my country labelled as Socialist!

Where are you from in Spain?

Can you break down some Spanish Data Sheets for the crew?

Maybe some obscure hidden gem beach towns?

[ElJefe]

1. Greece has about one million illegal immigrants, nearly 10% of the population. This is common knowledge.

2. Athens is the city in Europe with most Porches per capita.

3. In Greece, the number of Greeks paying the top tax-rate is 15,000. The bracket starts at 75,000 euros.

4. The Estonian economy has several excellent indicators, including non-existant govt debt, unemployment is falling and the economy has recovered nicely after a severe recession (in some ways worse than anywhere else). The cure was drastic, immediate cuts to government spending.

5. The scale of "austerity" measures is quite small compared to the size of GDP. People are fighting tooth-and-nail for bread-crumbs, but it makes sense. 10,000 people can make a lot of noise if they're about to lose their livelihood, even if this would only make a small difference in the big picture.

Perspective, my friends, perspective...