# Is Angela Merkel insane?



## George Caplan (Jun 22, 2012)

debate.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2012)

No, she is a slave, working for the banks and its organizations like that IIF http://www.iif.com/


----------



## José Herring (Jun 22, 2012)

Kind of always seems that these institutions are all owned by a small group of people that just tell politicians what to say and do. You think we have separate countries, but all evidence points to that all countries are controlled by the same set of banks. I mean how many times have we seen a crisis and its always the same 5 money institutions involved?


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2012)

josejherring @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> Kind of always seems that these institutions are all owned by a small group of people that just tell politicians what to say and do. You think we have separate countries, but all evidence points to that all countries are controlled by the same set of banks. I mean how many times have we seen a crisis and its always the same 5 money institutions involved?



+1

At these days, Merkel & Co want to make that ESM happen. The badest thing for europe ever!


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 22, 2012)

germancomponist @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> No, she is a slave, working for the banks and its organizations like that IIF http://www.iif.com/



Dude - you can say that about just about every world leader.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 22, 2012)

She is neither insane nor a slave but one of the most down to earth and reasonable politician that a country can wish for.

Don't be so jealous. Also it would suit you to accept that Mrs. Merkel is the democratically elected leader of our country. To discredit her just because you don't like consistent people if they go against your personal financial interest is no good style.

BTW if anybody does not want to be a slave/under massive influence of banks: don't take out a loan.

And: Bankers can usually not be trusted in political questions. They have way too much vested interests.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2012)

It's precisely the fact that she was democratically elected that makes her fair game for discredit, Hannes. Same with any elected official - if you disagree with them then you can discredit them.

And just saying don't take out a loan is ignoring the disaster the banks have wrought on the world, which affects almost everyone whether or not they have any loans. And in the US they wield way too much influence over our politics.

I'd call an obsession with low interest rates and (in her and many other peoples' minds) punishing countries "for spending too much" - austerity - at best irrational, and in my opinion quite insane.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 22, 2012)

I actually think Germany has done an excellent job, considering they re united East and West only a couple of decades ago.
I can't imagine inheriting a nation of people who are all out of a job. and then turning it into a success story.
I read about Merkel years ago when she was assigned a Cabinet position in Kohl's adminstration.
Impeccable credentials, not normal for a politician. Personally I am tired of wealthy people running our politics, or lawyers.

I know the ESM is damn near criminal and had to be written by Banks, not politicians.
But why is Merkel so insane...?

Europe no longer looks to the USA for strength or advice, they seem to look to Merkel.
I mean look at the other leaders..? Berlesconi, Sarkozy and even that sex fiend we arrested New York was to be a Socialist leader of France, etc..
And people think she is insane...

Confusing times...


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 22, 2012)

The problem with the word "austerity" is that it appears virtuous from both a personal and national standpoint. Hard work, thrift, industriousness, certainly these are considered virtues by many people. The problem comes when you apply the same word to an international monetary crisis-in which case it may end up to be a very poor solution and, in the short term, a potentially deadly one.


----------



## nikolas (Jun 22, 2012)

You can very well bet that the austerity measures are presented in the European countries are NOT working. I can tell you that.

I can also agree that many European countries (especially Greece, and it hurts me to say that), need some serious straightening up! But not this way. This is too harsh! 

This whole deal about banks, lending, loaning, etc, is bullshit. I don't even have a credit card and no loan on my name and go by with what I make. When a country is not able to do that for 3 decades... well what do we expect to happen? And still, after all this talk, and austerity measures, etc still Greece is unable to produce, at least as much as it needs... Shity situation... 

Insane? No, I don't think so. But like Hannes, I got the word as rather personal, and quite insulting. For me 'insane' is an outright insult!


----------



## paulcole (Jun 23, 2012)

chimuelo @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> Europe no longer looks to the USA for strength or advice, they seem to look to Merkel.



I don't think she's insane but I don't think the guy starting this topic actually meant that literally either. Just guessing having read some of his views.

From a British pov, your quote about Europe looking to the USA is inaccurate in the extreme because if this fiasco goes on much longer and we're treated to yet another ludicrous summit somewhere in Europe, The USA will really start to loose its patience I'm guessing. The USA has a debt mountain of its own and should Europe continue on this path of what can only be described as reeling from one fantasy to another, The USA will have plenty of advice and most of it will sound threatening. And rightly so imo. Without the USA, Europe would have gone under years ago. The USA needs markets that to and fro. Not this crap that the Europeans are foisting on everyone. 

The Euro is great for Germany. The DM is not. That's their biggest fear.


----------



## paulcole (Jun 23, 2012)

nikolas @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> Insane? No, I don't think so. But like Hannes, I got the word as rather personal, and quite insulting. For me 'insane' is an outright insult!



You mean like allowing public sector workers to retire on full pension benefits at 50? When there's no growth and what growth there is, is based on tourism? And no collection of taxation either?  

And then joining the Euro because they thought that would be an easy bailout when things inevitably disappeared round the bend of the loo? 

From a UK perpective, if there was a referendum on the EU tomorrow, my guess would be we would be out of there the next day.


----------



## nikolas (Jun 23, 2012)

paulcole @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> nikolas @ Fri Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Insane? No, I don't think so. But like Hannes, I got the word as rather personal, and quite insulting. For me 'insane' is an outright insult!
> ...


No,

I mean when you can claim child benefit for years and years, even if not in the country, and then claiming that you work full time when, in fact you're not, and then claiming tax credits, when you don't need to, and then not marrying your partner, in order to claim milk coupons!

Yeah... I've been in the UK mate! 

Enjoy your 'empire' alone if you care... and out of the EU. Come on... the door is right there!


----------



## lux (Jun 23, 2012)

What makes me suspicious those days is that there is really no attempt to explain to european citizen the reasons of some of the "unbreakable" axioms of actual economilcal directions.

I'm a graduate in economics and management and have no clear idea about what conseguences of a less austere (and potentially, no i would say effectively, recessive for 90% of european economies) approach would have. I also never heard a really clear explaination of the conseguences of an euro failure. 

I cant even imagine what people with a little or no economic knowledge is actually understanding of the whole thing. That will prolly lead to confuse and approximate hatery versus this or that country leader. Merkel being first of the list.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 23, 2012)

lux @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> I'm a graduate in economics and management and have no clear idea about...
> 
> I cant even imagine what people with a little or no economic knowledge is actually understanding of the whole thing.


Yes, Economics, especially macroeconomics has always seemed very abstract to me.
I try to keep informed by reading opinion columns by a few experts.
This one is intriguing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-policy-has-contributed-to-the-great-economic-divide/2012/06/22/gJQAXTX2vV_story.html?hpid=z2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2)

I regularly read Paul Krugman in the New York Times.
He ascribes to Keynesian economic theory, as it seems do most economists.

His general thinking is that austerity and cuts in general are exactly the wrong prescription for the current world crises. 
Of course he agrees that many countries are using an unsustainable debt model, but that cuts will actually add to the length and depth the world recession. 
In fact he is now referring to it as a genuine depression.

His claim is that history clearly shows that governments must "spend" their way out of a deep crises like this one. 

Since you've studied economics, I'm wondering what your opinion is regarding
Keynesian theory, and the austerity tactics being played out in Europe now.

(Probably a huge question :? )

Ken


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 23, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> She is neither insane nor a slave but one of the most down to earth and reasonable politician that a country can wish for.



Huh...... 

- 100!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 23, 2012)

> But like Hannes, I got the word as rather personal, and quite insulting. For me 'insane' is an outright insult!



Ah. That's just a language/cultural translation, Nikolas. To an Englishman or American the word doesn't have the same bite at all.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 23, 2012)

KEnk, would that it were so that most economists were Keynesian! It seems to me that most economists these days - the ones that hold sway over policy - are clouded by conservative politics. We'd be out of this depression by now if everyone had listened to Christie Romer about the size of the stimulus, for example.

And of course in Europe they're...insane.  (Sorry Nikolas and Hannes.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 23, 2012)

^ What Larry says. That's exactly the problem. Basic business horse sense doesn't apply to macroeconomics. It's totally counterintuitive.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 23, 2012)

All this, austerity, government spending ect., are just symptoms of a more basic problem.

In all the economic theories I've read, Keynes, Freedman, Bastiat, etal, they're full of theories and obscure basic economic facts. What's alarming is that theories not based in fact are not theories but just opinions. No matter how well reasoned. The "theories" that mankind operates on economically are just well reasoned opinions no supported in fact. Just a cursory view of history will tell you that. Every theory has been tried and they've all failed. Thus, there's no truth in any of them.

So I came to a conclusion. Economist that tie themselves politically aren't trying to teach "economics" but rather are trying to bend economics to fit some sort of political aim.

That's why economies are failing. It isn't because of recessions, depressions, ect.. those things are brought about by just plain poor financial management on the part of governments and on the part of private money institutions.

If people practiced good money management then most of these problems would just go away. But, if governments keep on spending more than they take in, then they become slaves to the banks. Then the banks and financial institutions engage in currency and market speculation and pretty soon entire economies are at risk of collapsing.

Then the liberals come in a blame "austerity" and the conservative comes in and blames "government" spending and the circus continues. But if any of these things was really the problem, then austerity or government spending would work. And, in truth, both cutting and spending by governments have only had some effectiveness, usually not lasting more than a few years if its effective at all. There's another clue that both left and right of economics are just utterly futile exercises to enact some political bent rather than running a good economy.

Got to hand it to greed and stupidity. Powerful forces. No matter how many times humans fall victim to these forces, they're so attractive that we fall right back into the same game, over and over.

If politicians are to be successful in managing economies they have to get over their own political philosophy and realize that in politics you decide how money should be spent, but spending it is actually a different matter all together and has nothing to do with what you "believe" and has everything to do with what's actually real. And I find that ability lacking in just about every politician. They lack an ability to face reality. But, I don't fault them really. You have to be a dreamer to think that you can be president. I guess what I do fault is that once the dream is achieved, they show an amazing lack of ability to actually face facts and get down to business.

It's well within the governments reach to provide every citizen with a basic minimum income. But, until governments get there act together any attempts to do so only wind up in financial disaster.

And us being the proletariat of the world are left gouging each others eyes out in a futile effort to eek out some sort of survival. The most people can hope for is to someday become the bourgeoisie. And the guy that rips more eyeballs out, wins. But actual financial stability is so far out of reach for most of us that it's quite frightening.

In an ideal system, one would be guaranteed a minimum amount of survival, with the option to work his way out of the lower classes. This has never been achieved in this world and if it is achieved it won't be achieved the way Western governments manage their finances.

Until then, it's a dog eat dog world.

Damn I'm getting cynical in my old age!

But, I've been trying hard of the last few months to look at this objectively, and the more I look at it the harder it is to look. Most of us are going to die in debt. Having spent more than we've made. Even a basic home mortgage in California these days is more than one person can make in his lifetime. In case you didn't know, the term "mortgage" literally translates into "death agreement". Yeah, puts a perspective on things.

So the banks control our lives until death and now they control our governments. In no small part, the current economic theories in practice have practically guaranteed bank domination. They are now more powerful than our democratically elected governments.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 23, 2012)

@ Hannes:

Did you read the treaty once the ESM?


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 23, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB_cBQ4nWa8


----------



## nikolas (Jun 23, 2012)

josejherring @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> ...
> 
> *That's why economies are failing.* It isn't because of recessions, depressions, ect.. those things are brought about by just plain poor financial management on the part of governments and on the part of private money institutions....


Emphasis and cutting the rest of the post mine.

You see I don't agree with that at all. Because it takes away from all the people their right to think, act and be rational. It's greed alright, but the banks are not the only ones having it. Everybody is greedy... and the way shown to us is through loans and banks.

Nick: Aha... Got it! Thanks!


----------



## José Herring (Jun 23, 2012)

Hmmm... I don't see your point Nikolas.

I think that the right to think, act and be rational is the only way for the individual to pull himself out of the mess that the "collective" has gotten us into.

Your point is the only thing that keeps me going. Because if I had to rely on my country or on the benevolent musings of by bank and creditors I'd have slit my wrist a long time ago.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 23, 2012)

josejherring @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> Hmmm... I don't see your point Nikolas.
> 
> I think that the right to thing, act and be rational is the only way for the individual to pull himself out of the mess that the "collective" has gotten us into.
> 
> Your point is the only thing that keeps me going. Because if I had to rely on my country or on the benevolent musings of by bank and creditors I'd have slit my wrist a long time ago.



There ARE some personal choices. Banks that offer predatory loans are evil, but people who sign them without really knowing what they're getting into are naive or not very smart. People (like many in my old building) who took out equity loans for their homes and spent the money on expensive vacations and cars and general STUFF and eventually lost their homes? This was not a good financial plan to start with.

I know I often come down on the other side of this thing, but I did want to comment that in many cases, there IS some personal responsibility involved. During the last few years of the bubble, I was nervously watching the real estate market saying "this CAN'T keep going up". I got out just in time. It would have been better to be a little earlier for my peace of mind, but at least I was totally aware of the bubble. People in general seemed to blithely think real estate would go up forever. That sort of thinking of thinking is amazing to me.


----------



## George Caplan (Jun 23, 2012)

2 months. that's how long they've got. thats my bet and I won't budge. sort it out or someone else will. that's how i see it.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 23, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> josejherring @ Sat Jun 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm... I don't see your point Nikolas.
> ...



The older I get the more I realize how true this is. And, the bunk they're selling publicly is just pure fiction.

I read this book, Hidden Persuaders. Old book, but it goes into how PR and advertising tries to shape public opinion. Truly enlightening.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 23, 2012)

josejherring @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Jun 23 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Sat Jun 23 said:
> ...



José, as long as you're aware that there ARE large corporate shadow forces at work in all of this. Personal responsibility isn't the whole story. The bailout wasn't about individual choices.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 23, 2012)

george-here's a question with no personal spin.

Before the latest round of European crises, were you invested at least partially in American equities?

f so, have you taken your holdings and put them all in cash and/or Treasuries?

The basis of my question is-if the sky is falling, certainly it's time for risk-off, yes?


----------



## KEnK (Jun 23, 2012)

josejherring @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> In all the economic theories I've read, Keynes, Freedman, Bastiat, etal, they're full of theories and obscure basic economic facts. What's alarming is that theories not based in fact are not theories but just opinions. No matter how well reasoned. The "theories" that mankind operates on economically are just well reasoned opinions no supported in fact. Just a cursory view of history will tell you that. Every theory has been tried and they've all failed.


I'm not an economic expert, but I can read this statement and say that it's simply not based on fact.

While it is unlikely to predict future or even current cause and effect, 
reading economic cause and effect of the past is a matter of data, not opinion.

example:
Cause- Reaganomics, GOP deregulation, Greenspan's Free Market.
Effect- Disappearance of US manufacturing base, shrinking middle class, greatest redistribution of wealth in US history.

These are facts, not opinions.
At the beginning of this current crises Greenspan said he was wrong.
That means his ideas failed.
It's deregulation and Free Market Ideology that created the mess we're in now.

This occurred because people ignored the lessons of recent history.
(what led to the 1929 crash and the ensuing Great Depression)

The GOP is particular adept at ignoring facts.

There is actual data to support and refute "economic theory".
Dismissing it is not as simple as saying "that's just an opinion".

k


----------



## George Caplan (Jun 23, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> george-here's a question with no personal spin.
> 
> Before the latest round of European crises, were you invested at least partially in American equities?
> 
> ...



im not sure I understand the premise of the question larry. i have been invested in north american stock since time began. i dont really like being in cash. lately since i retired my tendency is less individual stocks and more towards a collective of funds because i no longer have access to the kind of information i used to enjoy.

the markets will get very very concerned sooner rather than later. weve a massive debt mountain. president obama is up for reelection. even paul krugman cant see anyway the eurozone can survive in its present form.

off the point. any uk people tell me if rbs natwest has been hacked?


----------



## George Caplan (Jun 23, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> She is neither insane nor a slave but one of the most down to earth and reasonable politician that a country can wish for.



they said that about president bush before he was elected.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 23, 2012)

With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. 
NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. 
Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[2][3] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."

Here's one of the big American Manufacturing killers that damn near broke the backs of the Union Manufacturing jobs in the USA.
Seems pretty popular with the DNC as well as the GOP.
But that's the benefit of a 2 party system.
Each side blames the other, they both get rather wealthy and Liberal politicians might be lobbying after they are retired form their seat for GOP causes, so the blame is whoever was in DC before the last group of wealthy lawyers.

So it's not surprising to see Bush and the GOP spending money at record levels, then having the DNC and Obama spending at record levels and continuing the very same policies. 

One can only conclude that they were following orders from the very same people, even though they mooch money and make promises from whoever pays.

If Romney and the GOP sweep the WH and Senate, they will continue spending and also doing as instructed, so vote for who you want, the real powers will buy the legislation they need regardless of what position gets refined, or stance " evolves."

Greenspan did say he was wrong, and Atlas Shrugged is an example of years of theories, very similar to the theories other " experts " use and yet still every month their numbers are wrong, yet they still get to make their predictions and hold their jobs while failing at every turn. 

I actually think these people know exactly what they are doing, and are being used to mislead the public.
The one constant we see since 2006 actually, 2 years before the " crisis " is that uncertainty is very beneficial for the real powers, and after 6 years of it, I see that re distribution of wealth happening under the DNC as well as the GOP.

I'd love to hear Andrea Mitchell ( MSNBC Liberal Spinster ) and her Ayn Rand worshipping husband, Greenspan discuss the day over a nice dinner.

Their marriage is exactly how I see these 2 parties in DC. They fool everyone into thinking they are in control and have their " constituents " back when actually they do as told, sell the laws for favors and self enrichment, then laugh about the Sheepfights they cause for entertainment during Desert.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 23, 2012)

> In all the economic theories I've read, Keynes, Freedman, Bastiat, etal, they're full of theories and obscure basic economic facts. What's alarming is that theories not based in fact are not theories but just opinions. No matter how well reasoned. The "theories" that mankind operates on economically are just well reasoned opinions no supported in fact. Just a cursory view of history will tell you that. Every theory has been tried and they've all failed. Thus, there's no truth in any of them.



What KEnK says. Keynesian theory has many examples in history. The biggest one is World War II, but it has succeeded on smaller scales - for example in our country the ARRA in 2009 (the fact that it wasn't big enough to end the depression doesn't mean it didn't work to the extent it could). Furthermore, the opposite of Keynesian theory - cutting spending (austerity) in the middle of a depression - has been tried and failed many times. Look at Europe.

The austerity has been exacerbated by the ECB, by the way - they think inflation is the only thing that matters. 




> So I came to a conclusion. Economist that tie themselves politically aren't trying to teach "economics" but rather are trying to bend economics to fit some sort of political aim.



That's been true on the right only. Greedy piggies don't want to pay taxes, so they say we need to cut social spending - and then the economists back them up by changing the subject to the debt. What Hillary said about a vast right-wing conspiracy is not fantasy.

The opposite - that liberal economists invent theory to get the government to spend lots of money - has not happened.



> That's why economies are failing. It isn't because of recessions, depressions, ect.. those things are brought about by just plain poor financial management on the part of governments and on the part of private money institutions.



I think it's more complicated than that, but it's true that this depression was triggered by a financial system crash. With the exception of a too-small stimulus in 2009, the worldwide policy response has been exactly wrong, however, and that's simply conservative ideology at work.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 23, 2012)

Yeah, I guess you can't really blame all of the Liberal Governments in power right now wanting to follow Conservative Disciplines......
Those Banks and Movie Stars really want to make sure you spend their money appropriately, the tax payers money though...................Fawgettabowdit.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, NAFTA proved to be a financial disaster.

But this was still life under Reaganomics.
Clinton playing ball w/ a GOP majority.

By '92, the disappearance of the US manufacturing base was well under way.
It didn't start there but NAFTA did finish it off. Unquestionably.

Thing is, we're still operating under those failed deregulation principles.
I think Obama wants to turn it around-
Hence the occasional references to Roosevelt and the New Deal.

Lot's of people think there's no difference between the 2 parties.
I'm not one of them.

I've said it before, the American Way of Life has never had a more effective enemy than the GOP. 
Look at the numbers since 1980.
Look at last year's debt ceiling debacle.
They want to tank the whole economy for political gain.

While the Dems might be self serving unorganized schemers,
the GOP is positively treasonous.

k


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 23, 2012)

^ Sing it.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 24, 2012)

more interesting for germans:

http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q61 ... n1/ESM.jpg


----------



## José Herring (Jun 24, 2012)

I read up on EMS. It's like legislating Keynesian economic theories.

They might as well just open up a big bank vault where Europeans can just throw in their taxes. In gold coins of course because currency will be useless. At least this way you can cut out that pesky governmental middle man and maybe save a coin or two.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 24, 2012)

How is bailing out banks legislating Keynesian economic theories?


----------



## midphase (Jun 25, 2012)

I don't know if she's insane, but she does have some insane beats!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz4m7Oj6hRo


----------



## José Herring (Jun 25, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 24 said:


> How is bailing out banks legislating Keynesian economic theories?



ESM bails out countries that are overly indebted to banks. The inevitable conclusion of deficit spending and "stimulus". So government borrows more then when they can't borrow any more they get bailed out by another country who of course has to borrow yet more, cyclical borrowing. Deficits then get so big that most tax money then goes to pay the interest on loans.

Thus European citizens might as well just turn over the tax dollars to the banks. That's where the money is heading any way.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 25, 2012)

http://www.freiewelt.net/video-29/eu%3A-treaty-of-debt---stop-it-now%21-%28engl.-version-von.html (http://www.freiewelt.net/video-29/eu%3A ... n-von.html)

It's nice to be the elites that get the Mafia style interest payments on the loans.
200% is what I am reading, don't know if it's true, but the way the law is written in the link above sure makes it just like our elites who cannot be prosecuted for stealing taxpayers money, or committing crimes, fraud, etc.
DOJ can't even convict a baseball player, or a scam artists like John Edwards.
Imagine them trying to convict one their Donors in one of these Dog and Pony mock up trials we've seen lately.

If the ESM is like it is described in the video above, I am not surprised as it reveals the real rulers of our Global Governance........................sorry, I meant our Democracies, and after seeing 4 similar videos and they haven't been removed from their links, it's safe to assume their accuracy.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 25, 2012)

chimuelo @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> ...
> 
> If the ESM is like it is described in the video above, I am not surprised as it reveals the real rulers of our Global Governance........................sorry, I meant our Democracies, and after seeing 4 similar videos and they haven't been removed from their links, it's safe to assume their accuracy.



It is as it is described in this video. The reason why I asked Hannes if he is informed about this.... .

If this ESM will be come true, then good night! o=<


----------



## José Herring (Jun 25, 2012)

Central bank of Luxembourge will be the new European capital.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 25, 2012)

Jose, I disagree with a) what you say ESM is, and b) your analysis of what the prescription is.

Keynesian stimulus is exactly what's needed, and if they can produce a little inflation in the northern countries then that would be a good thing - much better than massive unemployment in the countries that are in trouble.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 25, 2012)

How is ESM not deficit spending?

I don't get what you're saying.

And, deficit spending does not equal stimulus. Violates law #1 of why currency was issued in the first place.

Shit if this keeps up we'll be trading chickens for milk again. Currency will be so worthless that it will be cheaper to wipe your ass with it rather than by toilet paper.

This is truly alarming. 

Europe is at the end game of what Keynes wanted.

--I work for a Government I despise for ends I think criminal.
John Maynard Keynes


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 25, 2012)

?

I think we're talking past each other.

Keynes was right, whatever you're saying. Deficit spending when nobody else is spending is exactly the right policy response. Bailing out banks is not deficit spending, it's bailing out banks (whether it goes through the government or directly to the banks).


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jun 25, 2012)

It's funny. People often get it backwards. When things are good, the government should pay down debt and keep an eye on spending. Don't lower taxes: build a surplus. Dismantle obsolete programs. Redesign good programs to become more efficient and to better target those in need.

When there is a disaster, such as war, raise taxes and borrow as needed. Pay for the solution. Shift economic activity to respond and recover as needed. Raising taxes makes sense as this probably isn't the time to be building yachts.

When there is a depression, the government should borrow and employ - hopefully in areas that will be the foundation of future economic growth. This is the opposite of how we need to manage our personal finances when risks are high. It helps maintain balance.

I remember the last election where Republicans scolded Obama at wanting to "redistribute wealth." But isn't that exactly what happens in a robust economy? Face it, when everybody is sitting on their pot of gold and nobody is spending, the GDP is zero - regardless of how much gold we might have.

Yep. Economy is churn. A healthy economy redistributes wealth vigorously - along with goods and services.

Asking governments to stop spending during a recession is like asking the winds and currents to stop while adrift in a sailboat.

The Bush Republicans borrowed money when the economy was strong, lowered taxes during war, and now want to cut government spending when unemployment is high. How could they be more dead wrong on the economy?


----------



## midphase (Jun 25, 2012)

The problem is when you have a public who doesn't understand basic economic principles, and who also distrusts those who do.

It's a deadly combination


----------



## José Herring (Jun 25, 2012)

You guys are missing the point.

You endlessly discuss symptoms and never address the underlying problem.

There shouldn't be deficit spending because the government should never run a deficit. It should run a surplus. They certainly take enough money in to do that. So the true culprit is bad financial advise leading to mismanaged budgets.

Currency only has value if people have confidence in the country issuing the currency. If the government of the country is broke, having trouble paying its bills and is further in debt that most of our tax money does to paying interest rather than "stimulating" the economy then confidence is eroded and the currency goes to shit.

It's pretty simple. All these highly complicated economic theories are driving the civilized world into the gutter with the rest of the backwards 3rd world countries who's governments are collapsing economically.

If our governments were truly in good shape then they would be there to stimulate with confidence. But you can't stimulate anything by borrowing money to throw at an economy that is in taters both publicly and privately. Thus deficit spending doesn't equal stimulus. Thus the1.5 trillion dollar stimulus that we did have stabilized nothing. Thus the EMS treaty is the biggest con game I've ever seen. It will stabilize nothing and bring otherwise stable countries down on its knees around those that are too far gone to even attempt to save.

Maybe out of the ashes we can erect some governments that actually amount to something good. But, as of right now, I'm all to happy to see social democracies crumbling. If something does more harm than good, cut it out like a cancer and move on.

José


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 25, 2012)

> There shouldn't be deficit spending because the government should never run a deficit



Wrong.

It should run one right now 
- and it is, but it should be much, much larger.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 25, 2012)

> They certainly take enough money in to do that. So the true culprit is bad financial advise leading to mismanaged budgets.



They don't take in enough money to do that, especially during a depression. And the culprit - by which I assume you mean the current depression - had nothing to do with government spending (although that's part of the problem now). It was a private affair.



> If the government of the country is broke



"Broke" means they can't print money.



> , having trouble paying its bills and is further in debt that most of our tax money does to paying interest rather than "stimulating" the economy then confidence is eroded and the currency goes to shit.



That's the conservative line - what Paul Krugman calls the Confidence Fairy.

Confidence only comes when the economy is doing well and money is getting spent. Cutting back on government spending during a depression undermines confidence, because it shrinks the economy and the situation gets worse.



> It's pretty simple. All these highly complicated economic theories are driving the civilized world into the gutter with the rest of the backwards 3rd world countries who's governments are collapsing economically.



And that's also not right, Jose. Sorry to be so argumentative, but what happened in the US is a financial system crash, and everyone is deleveraging (meaning paying down debt) at once - meaning there's not enough spending. That's why the government needs to step in and write people checks to do useful things: nobody else is spending.

What happened in Europe is because of the Euro. I guess you could call that a complicated economic theory, but that's sort of like saying you can dry your hands on a horse - true but not quite right.



> If our governments were truly in good shape then they would be there to stimulate with confidence. But you can't stimulate anything by borrowing money to throw at an economy that is in taters both publicly and privately. Thus deficit spending doesn't equal stimulus.



There's no evidence that the underlying economic structure is in tatters, meaning that I believe massive stimulus would work very well. 



> Thus the1.5 trillion dollar stimulus that we did have stabilized nothing.



The stimulus we had was under $300 billion (the rest was tax breaks). And it stabilized our economy as well as it could given the small amount! You can see the effect on graphs of GDP very clearly. But a lot of what it did is hard to show - saved government jobs.



> But, as of right now, I'm all to happy to see social democracies crumbling. If something does more harm than good, cut it out like a cancer and move on.



The problem isn't social democracy, it's the 180 degrees wrong policy response to this depression (and the Euro in the first place). And this isn't cancer, it's real peoples' lives. That's basically the same line Hoover used: purging the rot out of the system. All that happens is that peoples' lives are ruined for years by unemployment and they often don't recover.


----------



## paulcole (Jun 26, 2012)

Does anyone really think the Eurozone is a democratic body? :roll:


----------



## Udo (Jun 26, 2012)

paulcole @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> Does anyone really think the Eurozone is a democratic body? :roll:


It's not ideal, but then in "the world's Greatest Democracy" it leaves more to be desired - look at that land of "Uncle Sam", where money "talks" far too much (and is allowed to by law), where some election procedures are inherently undemocratic, where Courts have made partisan decisions in relation to voting/electoral issues and even equipment used in the voting process has been known to be faulty at times, etc. :roll:


----------



## Chriss Ons (Jun 26, 2012)

paulcole @ 26th June said:


> Does anyone really think the Eurozone is a democratic body? :roll:



The governments and/or individuals who have a say in running it, will answer a resounding "yes" to that question. As for the others, the only reason for not saying "no" would be that you've been living on the moon for the past ten years.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 28, 2012)

Jose:

http://www.manifestoforeconomicsense.org/


----------



## Nostradamus (Jun 28, 2012)

Hannes_F @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> She is neither insane nor a slave but one of the most down to earth and reasonable politician that a country can wish for.



I like your sense of humor. A bit strange, but I like it.


----------



## George Caplan (Jun 29, 2012)

merkel is now finding out what the game really is.


----------

