Talk Elections

A leader of Greece’s governing coalition pushed back against German demands for deeper budget cuts to get the bailout needed to prevent a financial collapse.

In Athens, unions struck for the second time this week and police used tear gas to counter protesters. George Karatzaferis, who heads one of the three parties supporting interim Prime Minister Lucas Papademos, said he wouldn’t support austerity measures worked out for a rescue. He spoke hours after German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told lawmakers in Berlin that Greece was missing deficit targets.

“What has particularly bothered me is the humiliation of the country,” Karatzaferis, whose Laos party has 16 members in the 300-seat parliament, said in televised comments. “Clearly Greece can’t and shouldn’t do without the European Union but it could do without the German boot.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-10/greece-pushes-back-against-german-demands-for-deeper-cuts-to-receive-aid.html

This is why I am supporting Melenchon this year. The European 'left' has been a disaster and more neo-liberal than the neo-liberals.

They're being shown up by the likes of Karatzaferis (Orthodox Rally) and Victor Orban.

To be fair, the communists are not part of the government, so I doubt they are backing the deal either.

And it looks like Orthodox Rally only pulled their support after Germany had already slapped down the deal. So perhaps it was just a PR move.

It's kind of silly for Germany to make all these demands and then slap down the deal a day after. I don't see what purpose there is for such a thing besides humiliation.

I heard from a Greek poster on another forum that the LAOS leader has eventually withdrawn from the government.  The budget vote, scheduled for Monday evening (Greek time, obviously), will serve as a vote of confidence; if it fails, the government falls.

The two largest parliamentary parties are still in the government. Even after LAOS is gone (it has 16 MPs), and even after a few other defections (mostly from the PASOK), they need to loose another 80 MPs to fall. That's not the problem - the problem is, the whole discussion is entirely pointless.

The Greeks are in for hard times, but their government officials acted like accountants for Enron, so what did they expect would happen eventually? Furthermore, they will still be better off than most of Africa.

This whole tragedy is like the postponing of a death sentence on myriad occasions thus far. Just get it over with already.

Greek police union is talking like it isn't going to listen to orders to block strikes/protests.  this could get very fun very soon.

Germany is the real villain here.

No, the real villains are the people in Greece's government who one-upped the Enron accountants in the realm of fraud. Germany and the rest of the EU trusted Greece, and Greece betrayed that trust.

There are no villains here. The closest, probably, are those who designed the euro the way it got designed - but they were not villainous, they just miscalculated. It's not time to be talking about whose fault it is. One should try to figure out how to get out of it w/ fewest losses and least suffering.

I wouldn't say villain... but certainly shameless hypocrites.  I remember all those BBC articles 7-10 years ago when Germany laid the precedent for budget deficits that exceeded the cap allowed under the Euro agreement.

Of course they whined and moaned and used their weight to get what they wanted... like Germans will do like the best of us... and now they're on the other side and acting quite smug.

What's missing from that story is that Germany is not on the other side by accident. They're there because they undertook painful reforms to restore competitiveness. Thus, while it's true that they broke the rules and refused the fines they did actually deal the issues in a responsible manner. So they some legitimacy in being smug.

And I agree with Ag, that the politicians who set up the euro against economic knowledge are to blame. And I'm not sure they miscalculated either. If you ask Prodi he seems to think this was a clever way of bringing about fiscal union. The cynicism of the European project has no limits for some people.

I'll miss Makis Voridis.

THE HAMMER

Yup, completely agree.

some footage from the class war:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-13/greece-votes-in-favour-of-austerity-plan/3826308

There is always a villain, and he's always easily identifiable - it is he who has the most.

this is only because elements of the right in Europe have to at least pay lip service to xenophobic/anti-European sentiment that is crucial to their base of popular support; meanwhile the bourgeois left has been entirely bought and sold and markets the prevailing version of firm-driven faux-internationalism without reserve.  if the right is right, it's for the wrong reasons -- of course, it is perfectly fine to support forces which are right for the wrong reasons (Saddam in 2003, the Iranian theocracy in 2009, Gaddafi in 2011, Ron Paul in 2012 among the notable examples).

Law enforcement needs to start responding to deadly force with deadlier force, or the whole nation is going to be up in flames before you know it.

kinda tough when the 'law enforcement' is getting its wages and pensions put on the chopping block too, they're bound to change sides:


of course you can always turn to military dictatorship after that (and they may have to) but you run into major global PR problems if you go that route.

Your Lordship is too self-critical.

I would like to point out that the reason why LAOS is generally called far-right is because of... well... they're fascists, you know? (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=144008.msg3103892#msg3103892)

agreed.


All right in certain ways (except maybe Gaddafi), but not enough to actually support them. E.g., Saddam was right about not having WMD, but I wouldn't personally go so far as too actively root for the Iraqi military under Saddam against the US-led coalition. Just because LAOS is right about austerity, doesn't mean I support them to win elections.

At this point, if I were in Greece, I would be voting KKE. They might be unreformed Stalinists, but the cult of Marx is better than that of Market.

That's wrong.

I'd be voting for SYRIZA; DIMAR is filled with too many Europhile sentiments for my tastes and I would never support an outright Communist party.

Trust me, you wouldn't.

the important thing that would swing me to KKE are its direct ties to the trade unions.  but I won't pretend to actually know anything about Greek politics.

How the hell was the Iranian theocracy in 2009 right about anything? Nor do I see how Gaddafi would be.

they're right because they control areas not circumscribed within the hegemonic international neoliberal order.  Iraq is a blueprint for what happens when Western aggression moves in and creates or otherwise fills a power vacuum and it's absolutely horrific.  (granted there was no Western aggression as such in Iran 2009 but only because the West concluded there was no serious vulnerability on the part of the theocracy.)

Actually I was going to say they were right in the narrow sense that no convincing evidence of electoral fraud was produced. But I still would have supported the revolution even if there was no fraud.

Don't be silly, Opebo is always spot on.

I miss him already.  I'm hoping to see him on T-shirts in Chatachuck market soon though.

I like this image:

()

Austerity:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/02/athens-in-flames/100244/

What is it you dislike so much about them, out of curiosity?

I'd vote KKE too. It's not like Greek elections matter any more than student council elections in grade 4.

Austerity? More like "discovering there is no such thing as a free lunch."

Well, at least some California Democrats are honest about their true ideology. Kudos.

No. It's clear to anybody who isn't already a delusional market-cultist that the Greek government is complicit in the sadistic punishment of its own people. They're, among other things, firing tens of thousands of people. Not as an unfortunate side-effect. As the whole point.

Then again, you might not mind that, since you are on the record in this thread as exhorting the Athens Police to massacre civilians. Which, come to think of it, is probably being floated as an entirely proportionate response to the threat to The Markets.

Politico's love for the hand that holds the whip is almost unmatched.

Government officials in Greece engaged in Enron-style accounting fraud to get into the Euro, and then they continued the facade for years and years until, like Bernie Madoff, they could no longer keep up the illusion. Government officials are solely responsible for the state of Greece. Government officials thought they could essentially lie, cheat and steal with impunity. They were wrong. There is no free lunch, and nobody is going to just hand them a "do-over" slate, especially not the people of the nations who were betrayed by Greece. The other members of the EU trusted Greece, and Greece betrayed that trust from the beginning and just kept increasing the severity of the deception until the house of cards fell down. Actions have consequences. The Greeks made their bed, and now they're going to have to sleep in it.

Blaming somebody/something else for your mistakes/problems is the easiest thing in the world to do, but the free market/bankers have nothing to do with any of this. This is merely an example of government corruption and its consequences.

Is your Gaddafi man-crush for real, or are you joking?

Real of course.  What's not to like?

Crimes against humanity? For example, ordering and/or helping terrorists blow up a Scottish airplane and bomb a German night club with American soldiers in it?

You have such contempt for the Greek government, yet you have exhorted the Greek government to kill Greek civilians, publicly, in this thread.

Just pointing that out. Not to you, but to the rest of the forum should they be interested in this fact.

The current administration in Greece actually brought to light a lot of the corruption, although one has to wonder if they would have continued the facade if circumstances allowed it. In any case, the politicians currently in charge are not solely, or even largely, to blame for the current crisis. Their predecessors and much of the bureaucracy is really to blame. In any case, the Greek government now needs to maintain law and order, or risk having the entire nation going up in flames. The protesters are using deadly force, and have actually killed innocent women in banks, and anytime protesters use deadly force you need to respond with deadlier force if you want to get the situation under control.

Good thing the Greek government is too incompetent to listen to Politico. Otherwise they'll actually be prosecuted for high treason and such.

Small gubmint!

We've heard the term "tipping point" too many times as the crisis dragged on. When is the real, real tipping point, and what does it entail?

So if you were in Greece, you would rather see anarchy than restoration of law and order?

It should probably only take a few warning shots, some close calls, to get the protesters back into a peaceful protesting mode, which is their democratic right. But they do not have the right to firebomb buildings and law enforcement officials. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before the protesters kill more people. They've already killed a couple of innocent women who just happened to work in a bank.

Nice try at covering your behind.  It's a bit more credible than insinuations about Democrats infiltrating caucuses as part of an evil plot to crash a coronation ceremony.

Greek law and order right now is effectively a state of dictatorship, with neoliberal punishment ideology and rightist sadism as the dictators.

What reason would any Greek have to accept this system? They're being reduced to destitution for the sins of their rulers to appease a distant owning class. How does Greece benefit at all?

Very soon, ND leader Samaras will be making the walk to Canossa to swear his undying fealty to his corporate masters in the form of a letter of commitment.  One wonders how long he'll be left outside before his masters let him in.

I can't believe that there are relatively educated posters on this forum that buy into the neo-liberal myth that the plight of the Greeks was caused by profligacy. The severe economic downturn that was worsened by the EU's monetary union is to blame for the currently outrageous debt to GDP levels. Greece has no control over monetary policy so it was hamstrung in meeting the downturn head-on. The bondholders naturally react differently to nations caught in this situation. This was the perfect recipe for a positive feedback loop of destruction across the so-called "PIIGS" nations.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/hili_113a.pdf (http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/hili_113a.pdf)

I don't get this notion that the Greek people have done nothing wrong. This isn't about one leader, it's about an entire system that has been thoroughly corrupt.

I appreciate that plenty of Greeks are innocent in some sense, but in a democratic country the people are ultimately responsible for the acts of their leaders.

oh man.  you unreformed True Believer.

The alternative is an "uncontrolled" default, followed either by even deeper cuts to everything (well, your sallary might stay as it is, but the government will promise to pay it some time, perhaps, after you are dead), or reintroduction of the drachma - followed by rapid devaluation, which will have an effect of cutting everyone's real income and savings sharp (your pension is going to be there, and even paid, and enough to buy a couple of coffees a week, if you are lucky). Naturally, the Greeks are scared sh**tless at either prospect. If Europeans do not give money, though, there ARE no other options.

Now, I happen to suspect that reintroduction fo the drachma is the least bad of the bad options. But they don't have good options.

I do feel a bit sick of the moralist talk of "punishing" the Greek populace. The real problem is that euro system has been built in a manner, in which such "punishment" is the only enforcement mechanism, its only defense against disintegration. This is not a desirable feature of the eurozone architecture, but, rather, its main flaw.

Well, to be fair, for some people (not the ones getting hurt though of course) this outcome is considered one of the benefits.

Actually no, if they would just play the game of poker a bit more boldly the silly Germans might agree to print the debt away without this unhelpful austerity, since failing to do so would lead to a breakup of the Euro.

At any rate it certainly behooves them to refuse to pay back any of this debt and say to Europe - 'its up to you'.

the real 'Other' option would be to leave the EU, default and return to drachma, and exit world capitalism and join up in a trading partnership with ALBA.  if they did this though they'd probably get invaded or bombed by NATO.

At that point, euro with Greece in it would likely be less attractive to the Germans than the Deutschemark. Also, if the Greek bluff is called, the pain would be far too asymmetric: what would be a hiccup for Germany, would be a disastrous bloodletting for the Greeks. And, of course, at that point the Germans (and not only the Germans) would feel only too justified in punishing the Greeks - if pushed, this might, actually, end in making EU too hot for Greece to stay in.

It would be a lot worse that invaded or bombed by NATO :))) Without any NATO invasion this would imply becoming permanently (i.e., very likely for the lifetime of pretty much all the Greeks currently alive) poorer than Turkey. It would also imply losing one of the few safety walves left: emigration to the wealthier European countries (if Greece leaves the EU, Greeks would need visas to travel and work). The proportion of the Greek population that would be substantially worse off than it is even now, at the height of a depression, would come close to 100%. Also, this would, probably, mean the end of Greek democracy for a long time: the country would go from a coup to a revolution for years to come.

And you know what I think of the morals of those people.

Yes, and I'd agree. Just thought it was worth pointing out.

Its a gamble, but as you said in your earlier post, leaving the Euro is their least bad option, given the posture of their masters the Germans. 

You may be right that having the Greeks and others leave the Euro might not be a severe negative for the Germans, but on the other hand printing away the debt wouldn't be nearly as bad as they imagine either.

Most (through some do) don't want to force this on the Greeks, but the Greek economy and government need reforms, and while it would be better for everybody that they was pushed through much much slower, no one expect the Greeks would keep any promises they make for reforms the moment they got the money. Remember this isn't the first time the Greeks is taken in massive mismanangement of their economy and conning the rest of EU, and everytime they have promised that they would make reforms, the moment they got the money, they ran from all those promises. As such the decision have been made to force all the medicin down Greece's throat, while it doesn't have a choice, and hope the patient survive the massive dose.

By itself, "printing euros to save Greece" right now wouldn't be too bad for Germany. The problem is, once this is allowed, the value of staying in the euro for Germany is negative: they will have all the incentives for going back to the Deutschemark.

The Levy paper is correct. Had Keynes lived another decade, and the ideas he was working on at the time of his death reached their full fruition, and in the unlikely event that the designers of the euro took these ideas seriously, then precisely the present problem would have been anticipated.

At the heart of the matter is a fundamental mathematical identity, the balance of payments equation.

current account + capital account + foreign reserves = 0.

Any country without reserves running a current account deficit (like Greece) must have positive net capital inflows. If a country (like Greece) cannot convince others to continue to throw capital into the country, then it must adjust its current account. This can happen in two ways: a contractionary recession that shrinks the economy until imports fall lower than exports, or an expansionary action that grows exports until the country is earning its keep.


Not necessarily. The value of staying in a supranational superpower in which you have all the power and leverage, versus going it alone as a nation of 80 million people with a shrinking population, is quite intangible and arguably immeasurably large.

What now?  The whole benefit of the Euro for them is an 'unnaturally' devalued currency - printing loads of Euros will only increase this benefit.  Going back to the Deutschmark would kill their exports because they'd go back to having a fairly valued currency.

That's not how the German public and policymakers view it. Germany sacrificed its currency for the common project on the condition that this will be the new Deutschemark. They do not want inflation - and they are pretty competitive even outside the eurozone, despite euro being strong. In any case, printing euro to save Greece is, by itself, a major transfer from Germany to Greece. If Germany doesn't want to do this directly, which would mean financing the transfer with taxes (which it has no trouble collecting), why would it want to do it in this manner, financing it with segnorage?

Furthermore, if printing euros becomes a standard remedy for situations like the current one (and, in the absense of political mechanisms that might support fiscal transfers, it will very likely become so), the resultant common currency will start inflating fairly rapidly. Nobody in Germany would want to be a part of this.

Ah yes, the present creation of a lost generation, breakdown of economy, society, and political system, rise of extremism and looming revolution, and destruction of the 60-year dream, and looming return of global depression must not take precedence over the terrifying spectre of 2.5% inflation some years from now.

With 'responsible' Germany at the helm, we shall pull through!

It's going to be not 2.5% inflation, but something much more serious. Unless the political mechanisms that could support fiscal transfers on a much greater scale are introduced (and there is a near zero chance of that short-term, unfortunately), short-term fixes like "printing money now" are only bringing forward the "end of the 60-year dream" - or, at least, the end of the Euro. It seems, the single currency is just to costly for pretty much everyone involved. The best way to avoid "the lost generation" is to face the music and to get Greece (and, I guess, may be not only the Greece) out of the project, at least temporarily. If, once again, the desire is that the project itself survives.

Anything more than Greece and Portugal out of the Euro and you likely have a systemic collapse, depression, and lost generation. Remember, we have already started well on the way toward that path. If the Euro must be broken up, better a country that can work from a position of strength be the first to break off and go it alone - i.e., Germany. What we are facing is much worse than 1970's style inflation or even stagflation. At threat is the entire social fabric in Europe. This is not some phantom or result of mental exercise, more like reality that is creeping in right now.

Not true. Simply not true.

And if you believe it is true, then the only way out is forward: at the very least, give the European Parliament direct taxation authority over the eurozone member states. Create a powerful European government, politically responsible primarily to the European Parliament. Create pan-European political parties and run elections on European issues. Have the first-rate politicians go into European politics - national politics can survive w/ the young and the second-rate.  Otherwise, this is not going to be sustainable - every crisis will be ending up like this. This is merely the consequence of putting the cart before the horse and going blindly into the monetary integration before the political integration. As it is, the whole architecture is simply unsustainable. Even if it doesn't collapse now, it will eventually.

PS And, of course, if Germany gets out of the euro, euro won't survive long. Even if they keep the name, within years we will be reading in the newspapers about the exchange rate of the French euro against the Italian euro :)

Do you think the banking system of Spain or Italy can survive being kicked out of the euro? Or that, given the sure devaluation of the peseta and lira, the countries' external debts would not become unbearable?

Depends on how it is done. What seems increasingly obvious, though, is that Greek economy and Greek democracy might not be able to survive STAYING in the euro.

Perhaps. But default comes first. Default is highly popular in Greece, whereas exiting the Euro is still unpopular (I think the last poll 66% of Greeks still support it). The latter may come eventually, but not before the former.

If they can break things up in an orderly way, that would obviously be best. But I don't see it.

Rather, I see you chasing at phantoms. America dealt with 5-10% inflation in the 1970s, it was bad, but not nearly what Greece or Spain face today, with their 50% unemployment rates for youth. And it's far off. And not certain. The Fed has printed trillions... US inflation today has not exploded. What level of inflation is unacceptable? 6%? Well let them print some, and if inflation starts to get to that level, then let them reverse policy and do it your way. But you are willing to drive the car into the ditch now to avoid a pothole 10 miles down the road, which is only predicted to exist.

What's needed is obvious- expansionary policies. It doesn't matter how you do expansionary policies, just do it somehow. Instead of bailing the Greeks out, get them working for the Germans. Print the money, but don't give it to the Greeks, give it to the Germans... to buy from Greece. Say every German family that vacations in Greece gets their vacation paid for. Germans get free vacations, Greeks get employment. Expansionary, see? Because it gets the economy going. It gets people to work. Such is the nature of these things... you scratch my back, I scratch yours. It's simply a question of coordination. When that fails, is when you get what we see now, and will be seeing.

What you call "expansionary policies", really, is debt repudiation through inflation. Unless they generate inflation they won't work - their point is to get out of the debts that cannot be paid, and if there is no inflation, the debts will still be impossible to pay. I agree that Greece has reached a point at which debts have to be effectively abandoned, and doing this through inflation is, probably, least painful. The problem is, Germany does not need to repudiate its debts - it does not need inflation, thank you very much.

The "expansionary policies" won't be adopted - and won't work, if they are adopted - because there is no political mechanism that would make them sustainable. What you call "expansionary policy" will really be a transfer from the North (primarily, though not exclusively, Germany) to the South. There is NO support for this politically - and for a reason. If you start printing money, within a few years you will chase the Germans (and not only the Germans) out of the euro. Once this happens, France will be the next one to go.

If there existed greater political integration, inflating Greece out of the debts would not be necessary: fiscal transfers would have done the trick more efficiently. However, the lack of political integration means that monetary policy won't be sustainable either here.

The main problem is that, once you start printing money to save one country, EVERY national government would be irresponsible towards its own populace, if it behaves fiscally responsibly. If you borrow to the hilt, you can force the ECB to inflate out of your debts - spreading the cost of your borrowing. If you don't, you still suffer from the inflation, forced by other member-states. And there is no pan-European political authority that can internalize what each and every member will be doing. The result will be that the "new euro" will become weaker than the weakest european currency would be on its own. Of course, you could have all member-states pass balanced-budget constitutional amendments (not very efficient, but, ok), to prevent that - but, I am afraid, even then the incentives to misbehave would be strong enough for these to be circumvented. Before long, cutting zeros off the euros will become a common thing to do. Except that, of course, long before it happens, many, if not all, countries simply reintroduce their own currencies.

As for the free vacations for the Germans amid the Greek strikes... It would be a lot easier to import the Greeks to Germany to work as domestic help. And, in fact, keeping Greece in euro will do that admirably: since, as long as Greece stays in euro, there will be no jobs in Greece, traveling up north will be the main safety valve  - and will have the added advantage that those who travel won't strike.

The key problem, though, is, Germany is doing fine w/out a "stimulus" as it is. You don't, surely, suggest that Germans be paid in euros only expendable in Greece? You know, money's fungible.

That's a marvelous theory you have there - Europe turning into Zimbabwe- but rather fantastical, and frankly, incredible. It would never happen.

Governments wouldn't borrow to the hilt, because then it would be obvious what they were doing, and the ECB wouldn't help them. There's a difference between a basically stable and growing economy with a government that increases budget deficits 'just for the heck of it' versus a country in the 4th year of recession which can't reduce its deficit despite the self-destruction of the ruling political party because revenues are shrinking too fast and automatic stabilizers from a collapsing labor force are kicking in. Your story doesn't allow for that vast and obvious difference. It's like, if we save the life of this heart disease victim who has been desperately trying to get healthy for years but can't because he was too far gone to begin with ,then every person in the world will start eating Big Macs three times a day. If you disallow for common sense, then of course we're screwed.

On contrast to your fantastical story - I point to the present situation in Greece, and the present social situation in Europe as a whole, taking care to note the widespread disillusionment, slow growth, and youth unemployment - and point to the clear and present dangers ahead if the whole thing were to break up. It's crazy to me at least, how anyone could take your fantastical world as more of a threat than what I'm pointing to, which is happening before our very eyes.

Of course there are many other things I disagree with - expansionary policies do not necessarily mean transfers (unless you mean transfers in both directions), and while they may lead to more inflation than the alternative, their essential character isn't inflation. The essential character is activity. For the Germans complain the Greeks are lazy, yet their austerity policies are putting Greeks out of work -- in other words, making them more lazy. You can't solve a problem of laziness by adding more laziness. If a person is in debt to others, the natural thing to do is for that person to do something to repay others, in as much as he or she is able. That is common sense. This requires activity. What the contractionary policies being pursued now result in the opposite - less activity, less work, less production, less wealth, and less ability to handle debt.

The belief of the Germans (and apparently from above posts ag as well) in 'inflation' as a threat, in the middle of an enormous worldwide deflation is.. well.. I suppose faith is always just that.

Has there been much emigration to Cyprus? That would seem to be a logical course of action.

May I suggest that you throw out the American Constitution tomorrow? because what you suggest would be as likely to happen as the 2nd amendment being removed tomorrow. You have to work with what you have, not what you wish you had. You won't get a parliament which can raise taxes for decades into the future, and yes we have seen some expansion of the EU's power versus the states, but your suggestion is still too radical.


Yes Germany is more or less the heart of the Euro for the simple reason the it's the main trading partner for the much of the core of the Euro countries.

I don't know. My Turkish friends have noted they started noticing Greeks working in Turkey :))

That was, actually, exactly my point.

BTW, what does US constitution have to do w/ it? I am not an American, in case you wonder :)))

Of course it will never happen: long before it could, the French and Italian euros will have a floating exchange rate between them :))

Your Lordship must be living in a charmed world, in which prices have been dropping. I live in the real world, in which they are still growing.

There won't be any activity, except for strike activity, in Greece if it stays in the euro for years and years to come. But the German economy will have all activity it needs even without the "expansionary policies".  Germany will suffer the inflation it does not need. Greece won't be helped, unless that inflation is high enough to allow it to get rid of the impossible to pay obligations. The countries need very different things, and there is no political space in which these needs can be reconciled.

Please dispense with the personal attack, ag.  I have no recourse here as you are the moderator, so I'd like to appeal to you openly.  My posts here are respectful and to the point, I think it is reasonable to expect the same in return.

The prices of housing are plummeting, as well as many cheap consumables still cheapening.  The only things I've noticed going upward are food, fuel, and cars.  And ultimately, the most important falling price is that of wages - wages are falling hard.

Not as much as Germany will suffer if the euro area breaks up.


I concede Greece may to be too far gone to stay on the Euro. But anyway, the point isn't for Greece to have inflation so it can get rid of obligations. Greece is going to hard default, and get rid of its obligations like that. The point is to get the Greek economy going again. That's the only thing that will help Greece.

Ag has acted like a moderator should when his posts are reported on his own board - he asked other moderators to step in and judge it in his place. Since the above is not a personal attack it was not infracted.

Anyway, you seem confused as to what inflation is. The price of one commodity rising/falling does not constitute inflation/deflation. It refers to the general price level, of which there are measures available.

Here are some yearly inflation figures from a number of countries: as you can see only Japan and Switzerland have negative inflation (=deflation) on a yearly basis.

http://www.global-rates.com/economic-indicators/inflation/inflation.aspx (http://www.global-rates.com/economic-indicators/inflation/inflation.aspx)

Expansionary euro monetary policy will do very little, if anything, for Greece. You can print euros till Kingdom comes - in the next few years very little will go to Greece. Greek government won't get access to financial markets for years - and few Greek businesses will. It will have to be Germany sending money to Greece. Private money (even Greek private money) will go where it is profitable to invest - to Germany, where it will cause inflation. To make any difference for Greece the thing will have to be beyond huge.

And, don't foget, that foreign debts are only part of the problem. You also have pensions - that, unless there is inflation, will have to be cut and wage contracts, that will still have to be cut. The need for "astureity" will still be there - and the strikes and riots will still be there. Not a great environemnt to invest.

Actually, he does have a point: in some countries (though not in all) housing costs (which are very difficult to measure accurately) are not included in usual inflation measures. I don't know, if he were aware of that, but this could, indeed, be an issue.

Rubbish. What Greece needs is money, and printing creates it.


Actually, Greece has more potential than Germany, so if the conditions were right (i.e., contractionary policies replaced with expansionary ones), Greece would be more profitable than Germany, and private money would go there.

In any case, I have no problem for profitable investments that cause inflation. Without profitable investments, we would still be throwing stones at each other in Africa, so the Austrians/Ordoliberals will just have to suck it on that one. They can masturbate to low prices in the privacy of their own bedrooms.


Not at all - nothing needs to be cut, the Greeks just need a chance to earn what they spend. And really, it's possible - the Greek government primary deficit is quite low - about 2 or 3 percent, compared to many other advanced countries.

Obviously it is a personal attack since it is an attack on the character of his interlocutor rather than statement of an argument about the issue, Gustaf.  But I'm not surprised that you all never infract one another.  My appeal was to him personally to remove the offense.


It is precisely the dubiousness of this 'general price level' which is the point, Gustaf.  Obviously whoever is calculating it is severely underweighting things like wage rates and the cost of a house. 

My father's bestman's brother and wife now have an apartment in Istanbul were they do the majority of their business. They are probably some of the few people who actually are better off now. My uncle is thinking of moving a large part of his business to Turkey and I have heard of many people looking into investing/working in Turkey. As soon as money was involved they completely forgot that they 'hate' all things Turkish ;).

As to migration to Cyprus... Only so many can go, as there isn't really much in Cyprus....

I agree, and I believe the sooner this happens, the better. The world needs to be sent a signal about what happens when your government operates like Enron. And the Opebos of the world need a lesson in what really happens when you increase your monetary base by a spectacular margin.

Right you are :)

Believe me there was no attempt on my part to attack you character :) I would fess up, though, there was some irony involved. I am not sure, if it is against the rules - I would ask my fellow moderators (none of whom I know in person) to decide on that.

I think it is safe to say that nobody really attacks Opebo. He is not serious enough to be taken seriously. And this is coming from Romneybot 2012!

Ironical attack is attack, ag.  Please stop abusing your position.

I'm afraid you don't really get the concept of what a personal attack is...

I notice, Your Lordship has a very Thai view of Lese Majeste :)

Once again, I am not moderating my own posts - if other moderators decide that I stepped over the line, I will take the consequences.

However, I'd like to note, that in this very thread I've been quite obviously and personally (and entirely seriously) critical of the morals of other posters, none of whom chose to object. If anything here was a personal attack (I myself do not believe it was a violation of any rules, but I could be wrong), it was this - and you were not subject to it.

It was not clear that it was your point, and as you were lacking a avatar it was not clear that you are not American. As for why I used it as example, what better example than the American constitution to show how hard it is to change EU treaties. For as radical changes as you suggest it would take years of negotiation and several votes (primary in Ireland, Denmark and Sweden but likely also in other member states).

You know very well they won't.


You're missing the point, as usual, ag.  Criticism of the 'morals' of one's interlocutor is an appropriate and constructive part of making an argument.  In my case you're merely name-calling, a practice from which I am barred.  So, the unfairness is obvious, as well as the lack of any constructive purpose - your only purpose is to cause offense.

You object to the "Your Lordship"? Because that's the only name I've been calling you.

The only thing he does not like about "Your Lordship" is the fact that only you refer to him as it. He secretly fantasizes about becoming the next Colonel Kurtz.

Be careful with the intentionally obscure movie references.  People might start to think you are a jmfcst sock.

The idea that Apocalypse Now is obscure makes me sad.

Yeah, that one was significantly more obvious than anything jmfcst has said. Hell, half my posts are obscure references to TV shows that go entirely unnoticed.

Don't be ridiculous. An obscure reference would be saying that Greece should have been more Larry and less Balki. Watch and learn.

Yes, obviously.

Well, I'm not a member of the Marlin Brando fan club.  Apocalypse Now would be a far better movie of it had someone else in the Kurtz role, and the same could be said about the other films Brando was in.

I shall not leave this sacrilege alone without at least once commenting upon it.

My only comment on this thread is that putting scare quotes around "far-right" makes me unseasy.

Ok, I will avoid that in the future, if it upsets you. Which, of course, doesn't change the point I am making: your worldview is, really, mostly consistent with the interest of a racist rich aristocrat, who wholheartedly despises the common folk and enjoys satisfying his wants at their expense, and so chooses to advocate policies that would make sure nobody can challenge his inherited advantages in life. Now, there is another, perhaps simpler, reason for somebody to have such views, but I don't like assuming people are stupid.

Unfortunately, gentlemen, all movie references, obscure or othewise, are generally lost on me :)

You see, ag, the way you elucidated your point above was perfect, until the last sentence.  We disagree - there is no reason to claim that one's interlocutor is 'stupid'.  You really should work on your posting, as you are setting a very poor example as a moderator.  Make your points, but leave out the trolling and personal attacks.

You object to me claiming you are NOT stupid? You really want me to change my opinion? I fail to understand you.

Nothing to do with me particularly in this case, I was referring to your continual claims that those who disagree with you must be stupid.. the example in question:



Here you suggest that anyone who doesn't believe that your capitalism is the best way to improve the lot of 'the common folk' must be stupid.  Really ag, this is not the kind of discourse you moderators are supposed to allow!

Well, I don't really know what is capitalism - it is a sort of a word I don't understand. I merely suggest that anyone who supports policies that close off opportunities for social mobility, reinforce inequality and increase poverty, likes the aristocrats and doesn't like the common folk. That's all. I've explicitly ruled out stupidity (which, I agree, many people would have taken to be a likelier explanation, but which I don't believe in): I prefer to assume evil. As you yourself have said, "<c>riticism of the 'morals' of one's interlocutor is an appropriate and constructive part of making an argument" - and I do have a problem w/ the morals of the rightwingers like yourself. I believe you wouldn't shirk from expressing such a view - nor do I see why I should.

This has nothing to do w/ my role as a moderator. I do not moderate my own posts, I do not know personally the other moderators and I do not discuss w/them how they do what they have to do. I always try to be fair when actually moderating myself, and I expect nothing else from the others.

It's a shorthand.

If only I knew for what :)

I think that mostly depends on who's using it.

I have the same answer to the questions 'what is capitalism?' and 'what is nature?' although I obviously consider them to be very different things. For in both instances my answer will be to simply throw my arms up, palms out, in a gesture signifying the general surroundings, and go 'This!' Now, one might be more appropriate in the woods and the other more appropriate in the middle of Times Square, or a shopping mall, but one gets the point. It's what we have. It's what is.

Perhaps it's like pornography (appropriate, or what?). You know it when you see it.

Anyway, it's a very useful shorthand. There needs to be a term for that thing that we do, because otherwise the implication is that things have always been thus. Which is untrue. So...

Markets pretty much appear as soon as society grows beyond some very small number of people and have thus been around for a very long time. There's quite a bit of interesting research on them, for example on the Mahgrib traders of Northern Africa.

But maybe capitalism refers to something beyond markets.

'beyond markets' could be defined in Marxian terms as something like 'mass commodity production for the purpose of exchange', including a specialized division and labor, and so on.  Weber identified six conditions for 'rational capitalism': modern firm, free market, rational state, rational law, rational technology (technological development unified with the process of production), rational attitude to life and economy (ie commodity fetishism).

while we can always argue what is capitalism? around the margins, playing ironically-dumb like economics professor ag just did is pure obfuscation.

Well, that definition seems to prove opebo wrong quite conclusively.

if that's the case I redact it unconditionally.

I suspect Ag's point might have been that he can't see a definition of capitalism that doesn't make anti-capitalist rhetoric like Opebo's patently absurd. This is just me guessing, of course, but still.

Capitalism is only a State policy, gentlemen, nothing more, nothing less.

Which state policy?

More like, I don't see a definition that I could operationally apply.