Discussion: The European Union

[Franklin Richards]

In European Union, water dehydrates YOU.


:cap: :cap: :cap:

[hopefuldreamer]

Seriously... can't we just expermient on THEM, see how long they last without water? :rolleyes:

[Destructus86]

Am I the only one who feels like the world is falling apart? Massive financial unrest, social unrest, an increase in all forms of nature disaster. It's just crazy...

[Lighthouse]

Am I the only one who feels like the world is falling apart? Massive financial unrest, social unrest, an increase in all forms of nature disaster. It's just crazy...

Compared to WWII, the 60s, the Black Death, the Crusades? We often think the world is getting worse when it's actually getting better.

[Destructus86]

Compared to WWII, the 60s, the Black Death, the Crusades? We often think the world is getting worse when it's actually getting better.

The Crusades and the black death weren't global. WWII was global, but that was a war. This isn't.

[the_ultimate_evil]

seriously can someone tell me why people actually wants to be a part of these crazy bastards little club

[hippie_hunter]

Voters in Spain have ousted the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers Party by an overwhelming margin. The center-right People's Party has captured 186 out of 350 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 44.6% of the vote. The Socialist Party has dropped to 110 seats and 28.7% of the vote, it's worst performance ever.

So far only over half the vote is counted for the Spanish Senate with the People's Party capturing 134 seats and the Socialist Party capturing 50.

Spain has become the third nation in ten days to switch leadership in Europe due to the economic and fiscal turmoil.

[the_ultimate_evil]

this could get very interesting

[Dr. Evil]

There are also elections in France coming up.

[hippie_hunter]

- S&P has downgraded Belgium's credit rating to AA.

- Moody's has downgraded Hungary's credit rating to junk.

- Italy's 10 year bond yields has risen to 7.26% above the 7% threshold that forced Portugal and Greece to receive bailouts.

- Spain's 10 year bond yields has risen to 6.7%.

- The British government is preparing for a possible Eurozone collapse within weeks.

- The Spanish government is considering to request a bailout.

- Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, and Mario Monti have conceded that if Italy defaults, the Euro is done.

[craigdbfan]

- S&P has downgraded Belgium's credit rating to AA.

- Moody's has downgraded Hungary's credit rating to junk.

- Italy's 10 year bond yields has risen to 7.26% above the 7% threshold that forced Portugal and Greece to receive bailouts.

- Spain's 10 year bond yields has risen to 6.7%.

- The British government is preparing for a possible Eurozone collapse within weeks.

- The Spanish government is considering to request a bailout.

- Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, and Mario Monti have conceded that if Italy defaults, the Euro is done.

The Euro was a bad idea from the start if you ask me.

[hippie_hunter]

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro Olli Rehn have conceded that without further fiscal integration, the Eurozone will break up.

[Destructus86]

Can someone break it down for me...i'm not the sharpest arrow in the quiver when it comes to this sort of thing.

If the financial crisis doesn't end in the Euopean Union....are they splitting up?

[hippie_hunter]

Can someone break it down for me...i'm not the sharpest arrow in the quiver when it comes to this sort of thing.

If the financial crisis doesn't end in the Euopean Union....are they splitting up?

The European Union most likely isn't in danger of splitting up. The European Union is more than just the Eurozone.

But the major leaders concerning the Euro have conceded that if a solution isn't found soon, the Eurozone will be forced to break up. It just isn't sustainable without a central authority to control the budgets and debt of the various nations within the Eurozone. The currency just isn't sustainable when you have Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and other weaker countries dragging the currency down.

[Destructus86]

The European Union most likely isn't in danger of splitting up. The European Union is more than just the Eurozone.

But the major leaders concerning the Euro have conceded that if a solution isn't found soon, the Eurozone will be forced to break up. It just isn't sustainable without a central authority to control the budgets and debt of the various nations within the Eurozone. The currency just isn't sustainable when you have Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and other weaker countries dragging the currency down.

Interesting...

Would you say that Eurozone is a good example of how a world government wouldn't work? It seems like if a few countries can't keep it together...a one world united government would have an even harder time....

[hippie_hunter]

Slovenia's voters have voted the ruling center-left Social Democrats out of power winning only 10 seats in the National Assembly. Down from 29.

New party, the center-left Positive Slovenia won 28 seats, becoming the new ruling party. The center-right Slovenian Democratic Party won 26 seats, center-right Gregor Virant's Civic's List won 8 seats, the centrist Democratic Party of Pensioners won 6 seats, the right winged People's Party won 6 seats, and the right winged New Slovenia won 2 seats.

[hippie_hunter]

Interesting...

Would you say that Eurozone is a good example of how a world government wouldn't work? It seems like if a few countries can't keep it together...a one world united government would have an even harder time....

Pretty much. I think that even if a deal is reached, the Eurozone is still doomed. The Germans are going to have the bulk of the control in Brussels and the various people's in the European Union aren't going to like it when the Germans tell them to perform more acts of austerity.

The lack of democratic legitimacy concerning the European Union is going to be it's downfall IMO.

[Destructus86]

Pretty much. I think that even if a deal is reached, the Eurozone is still doomed. The Germans are going to have the bulk of the control in Brussels and the various people's in the European Union aren't going to like it when the Germans tell them to perform more acts of austerity.

The lack of democratic legitimacy concerning the European Union is going to be it's downfall IMO.

Wow, really interesting stuff. Thanks!

[Paradoxium]

Here Comes The S&P Downgrade Barrage - Full Statement (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/here-comes-sp-downgrade-barrage)

[Dr. Evil]

Croatia signs EU Accession treaty:

http://news.yahoo.com/croatia-signs-eu-accession-treaty-091525721.html

[the_ultimate_evil]

honestly i would just love the uk to tell europe to stick it up they're collective arse, but this si such a double edge sword we agree and basically give up a lot of our own free will and civil liberties, tell them no and we lose most if not all trade partners. its extremely shaky ground


though i do find it funny that germany will have the most power, a lot of world war jokes could be made there

[The Englishman]

**** Europe!!!!

[Axl Van Sixx]

Interesting...

Would you say that Eurozone is a good example of how a world government wouldn't work? It seems like if a few countries can't keep it together...a one world united government would have an even harder time....

It proves that you can't artificially integrate separate economies. Despite globalization and the increased integration of the economy on a world scale, the nation-state is still the default form of government and individual nations often act in contradictory ways. We're seeing those contradictions now as the eurozone tears itself apart, with the divisions primarily between the strongest economies (France, Germany) and the weakest ones.

However, I don't think this refutes the idea of integrating many different countries into a single economy; it's just that that economy has to be planned, not subject to the anarchy of the capitalist market.

Am I the only one who feels like the world is falling apart? Massive financial unrest, social unrest, an increase in all forms of nature disaster. It's just crazy...

No, you're right - the world is falling apart, and you can pin the blame for that squarely on the capitalist system. This is the kind of world you get when profit rules all and human needs just aren't a concern.

Greece and Italy are now ruled by unelected technocrats, loyal only to the banks, who are about to ram through massive austerity programs that will result in prolonged misery for the people of those nations. But austerity is happening all over the world right now. Over and over, we hear that the people must suffer to appease the "markets". This idea - of sacrificing people to please some abstract deity - reminds me of another civilization in decline...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Codex_Magliabechiano_%28141_cropped%29.jpg/300px-Codex_Magliabechiano_%28141_cropped%29.jpg

This is also why I find it very helpful to have a philosophy that anticipates these events and is able to look beyond that to imagine a better future. Just as capitalism can only offer "misery without end", humanity now faces a choice, as it did a hundred years ago, between "socialism or barbarism" (Rosa Luxemberg).

Compared to WWII, the 60s, the Black Death, the Crusades? We often think the world is getting worse when it's actually getting better.

But sometimes the world is just going to get worse and worse unless we make it better, and to that, everybody needs to start walking like an Egyptian. The working class is on the move around the globe, and objective events will only increase popular anger as the economy continues to decline.

I should also point out that World War II resulted directly from the Great Depression, the biggest capitalist crisis until the one we're experiencing now. Not saying another world war is likely - the existence of nuclear arms would make such any such war apocalyptic in its implications - but it does worry me when you see our leaders constantly beating the drums for war against Iran, or the U.S. putting 2500 troops in Australia to continue encirclement of its biggest creditor (i.e. China).

[hippie_hunter]

Greece, Spain, and Italy have no choice but to enact austerity. You can't just print money out of nowhere, you can't just allow that much debt to accumulate, and in Greece's case: you can't lie about your numbers.

The current "capitalist" crisis isn't the result of capitalism. It's the result of bad government policies along with bloated and overly generous entitlement systems.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Greece, Spain, and Italy have no choice but to enact austerity. You can't just print money out of nowhere, you can't just allow that much debt to accumulate, and in Greece's case: you can't lie about your numbers.

The current "capitalist" crisis isn't the result of capitalism. It's the result of bad government policies along with bloated and overly generous entitlement systems.

http://www.supermanofsteel.com/Pictures/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

Blaming the Greek crisis on bloated entitlements is no different from conservatives blaming Wall Street's meltdown in 2008 on lazy minority homeowners; it's a scapegoat to distract from the real problem. The reason Greek debt got so huge in the first place is because the wealthy weren't paying their taxes, and because the government wasted public funds on prestige projects like the Olympics.

You might find the following article helpful:

The myth of the "lazy Greek workers" (http://www.marxist.com/myth-of-lazy-greek-workers.htm)

Let us look at some facts. According to Eurostat, Greek workers work on average longer hours than the rest of Europeans. They work a 42-hour week, while the average working week in the 27 member states of the EU is 40.3 hours and within in the “Eurozone” it is 40 hours. So that is myth number one dispelled.

Again, according to Eurostat, Greece also has the most underpaid private sector employees compared to the rest of the “Eurozone”. In Greece, the average gross monthly wage, including social security and taxes, is 803 euros [about £700 or US$1063], while the lowest gross salary in, for example, Ireland is 1300 euros, in France 1250 euros and in the Netherlands 1400 euros. So myth number two doesn’t stand up to any serious analysis of the real figures.

[...]

What about the age of retirement and pension levels? If we were to believe the bourgeois media Greeks live in a kind of workers’ paradise, where they can all retire early and nice big pensions. Again, facts and figures are stubborn things and they give a completely different picture. The average age of retirement in Greece is 61.4 years, a little higher than the European average of 61.1 years.

And what about these fat Greek pensions? According to the GSEE Labour Institution, the average pension in Greece is 750 euros per months [£650 pounds or US$990], while in Spain this figure reaches 950 euros, in Ireland 1700 euros, in Belgium 2800 euros and in the Netherlands 3200 euros. Moreover, this figure was calculated before the implementation of the new government measures, which increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67 years while at the same time cutting pensions by 30 to 50%.

Furthermore, according to the annual report of the joint GSEE-ADEDY trade union confederations on the economy and employment levels in 2009, of the current four and a half million labour force, more than a million work without any social security or other forms of legal protection. According to the report of the Commission for Social Security, established by the Greek Ministry of Labour, this figure reaches 30% of the overall workforce, while in the rest of the EU the percentage of workers in these conditions are only between 5 and 10% of the total.

And whose fault is that? Contributions are supposed to be calculated by the bosses, who pay a part themselves and the remainder is paid by the workers out of their wages. But that would mean declaring the workers legally and paying taxes on the profits made. The bosses prefer to hire a sizeable number of workers illegally, in the “black economy”, and thus save on both taxes due to the state and contributions. If the bosses had paid all taxes due in recent years, and if they had paid what they are supposed to pay into social security funds, the situation would not be anywhere as bad as it is today. It is the Greek capitalists and the foreign investors who have profited from this situation. But who are they blaming? The Greek workers and poor, of course!And yes, it's a crisis of capitalism because without the boom-and-bust cycle, without the wealthiest class in Greece deciding that country's policies, and without the rule of an unelected group of international financiers over every country's monetary policy, we wouldn't be talking about a Greek crisis right now. If Cuba was having economic problems, I'm sure you'd be quick to blame "communism" for those problems. Why so uncomfortable when the shoe's on the other foot?

Greece, Italy and Spain only have no choice than to enact austerity because there's currently a global economic crisis that was the result of the capitalist system's natural propensity to crisis. Not even conservative defenders of the free market will deny that capitalism experiences periodic boom and bust cycles; this is obvious to everyone.

But even working within the logic of capitalism, which says that somebody has to pay for the crisis, why are you so quick to agree with the ruling class's position - that we need to cut "entitlements", i.e. we need to go after the social programs that poor and working class people rely on? Why not tax the rich instead? Why do you buy so easily into the argument that we need to go after the poorest, weakest, most defenceless members of society to pay off that debt rather than the rich and powerful, whose policies got us into this mess in the first place?

[hippie_hunter]

http://www.supermanofsteel.com/Pictures/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

Blaming the Greek crisis on bloated entitlements is no different from conservatives blaming Wall Street's meltdown in 2008 on lazy minority homeowners; it's a scapegoat to distract from the real problem. The reason Greek debt got so huge in the first place is because the wealthy weren't paying their taxes, and because the government wasted public funds on prestige projects like the Olympics.

You might find the following article helpful:

The myth of the "lazy Greek workers" (http://www.marxist.com/myth-of-lazy-greek-workers.htm)

And yes, it's a crisis of capitalism because without the boom-and-bust cycle, without the wealthiest class in Greece deciding that country's policies, and without the rule of an unelected group of international financiers over every country's monetary policy, we wouldn't be talking about a Greek crisis right now. If Cuba was having economic problems, I'm sure you'd be quick to blame "communism" for those problems. Why so uncomfortable when the shoe's on the other foot?

Greece, Italy and Spain only have no choice than to enact austerity because there's currently a global economic crisis that was the result of the capitalist system's natural propensity to crisis. Not even conservative defenders of the free market will deny that capitalism experiences periodic boom and bust cycles; this is obvious to everyone.

But even working within the logic of capitalism, which says that somebody has to pay for the crisis, why are you so quick to agree with the ruling class's position - that we need to cut "entitlements", i.e. we need to go after the social programs that poor and working class people rely on? Why not tax the rich instead? Why do you buy so easily into the argument that we need to go after the poorest, weakest, most defenceless members of society to pay off that debt rather than the rich and powerful, whose policies got us into this mess in the first place?

Except I'm not blaming lazy Greek workers. It's obvious that they're being screwed over by their government which lied about their numbers. And yes, most of Europe's entitlement system is overly bloated. The Western system needs to reform their entitlement programs to deal with rising costs while keeping them effective for the 21st Century.

Also, the rich are getting their taxes raised in Europe. You see, austerity is more than just budget cuts. Austerity also raises taxes. Italy's budget for example increases taxes on property, luxury items such as yachts, cracking down on tax evaders (people who do this are typically wealthy), etc. Greece also increased taxes on the wealthy. You see, due to the bad policies of their governments, everyone will be affected, from the poor having their entitlements cut (Italy's Welfare Minister was in tears while announcing it) to the rich having to pay more in taxes.

And the current Euro crisis, much of it has to do with the simple fact that the Greek government LIED. They flat out lied to the international community so that they could join the Euro when they should have not been allowed to. The problem isn't with the concept of capitalism like you think. The problem is that these governments have been lying about the state of their finances and politicians that are afraid of entitlement reform.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Except I'm not blaming lazy Greek workers. It's obvious that they're being screwed over by their government which lied about their numbers. And yes, most of Europe's entitlement system is overly bloated. The Western system needs to reform their entitlement programs to deal with rising costs while keeping them effective for the 21st Century.

"Keep them effective for the 21st Century". What does that actually mean? Apparently, it means cutting them to the bone. Come on, you're letting politicians' Orwellian excuses for the cuts cloud your judgment here. I think a better way to keep those programs "effective" would be NOT CUTTING THEM.

Also, the rich are getting their taxes raised in Europe. You see, austerity is more than just budget cuts. Austerity also raises taxes. Italy's budget for example increases taxes on property, luxury items such as yachts, cracking down on tax evaders (people who do this are typically wealthy), etc. Greece also increased taxes on the wealthy. You see, due to the bad policies of their governments, everyone will be affected, from the poor having their entitlements cut (Italy's Welfare Minister was in tears while announcing it) to the rich having to pay more in taxes.

These are largely for appearances' sake - like in the U.S. when Obama promises to tie some corporate loophole for private jets at the same time he's cutting home heating subsidies for the poor - and then makes the melodramatic announcement that everyone is making sacrifices. If taxes for the wealthy have gone up in Greece, that's largely because Greece is not in control of its own destiny anymore, but rather a handful of unelected IMF bureaucrats are.

But it's obvious, contrary to your statements, that not everyone is suffering equally here. Corporate profits (and executive bonuses) in the U.S. and Canada are stronger than ever while working people suffer unemployment or declining wages and benefits. Why do they need to cut much-need social services at all when the people at the top have so much money that they're not doing anything with? This is the real question.

And the current Euro crisis, much of it has to do with the simple fact that the Greek government LIED. They flat out lied to the international community so that they could join the Euro when they should have not been allowed to. The problem isn't with the concept of capitalism like you think. The problem is that these governments have been lying about the state of their finances and politicians that are afraid of entitlement reform.

Again, why do we need entitlement "reform" (meaning cuts) in the first place? Why is it a bad thing for people to have decent wages and good pensions that they've earned? If the system is incapable of providing these things, then it's the system we should toss out, not poor and working people.

FYI, if Greece weren't going through this specific crisis right now, some other country would. Capitalism breaks first at its weakest link. If not Greece, we'd be having this conversation about some other country and it would be the same scenario. That should tell you there's a problem with the system itself. There's no way you can eliminate boom and bust cycles in a capitalist economy, and the effects of this are magnified by globalization (an inevitable process given capitalism's insatiable thirst for new markets) so that people suffer all over the world. Enough already.

The fact is that the Titans of Capital have no solution to this crisis. Nobody does, if they choose to work within the confines of capitalism. Do you? No solution is possible under capitalism except for austerity and cuts, and the widespread human misery that will cause, in my mind, makes it no solution at all.

[hippie_hunter]

Actually, if Greece weren't a part of the Euro, we probably wouldn't be having this issue. When there are countries that have their own currency like Argentina and Iceland, they're able to enact their own policies to get out of bankruptcy. Greece on the other hand, couldn't do anything to fix their problems the way other bankrupt nations did. The austerity cuts are not excuses. The fact is that they have no choice. Also, the party that got the Greeks into this mess......were the Socialists.

As for reform, I don't mean gutting those programs. There will never be enough political will to do such a thing. However, there needs to be reform to allow those programs to remain effective (as in still serve their purpose) and yet not sink their nations down with their costs (the high costs of entitlements is what is dragging down the fiscal state of the United States and Europe).

[Axl Van Sixx]

Actually, if Greece weren't a part of the Euro, we probably wouldn't be having this issue. When there are countries that have their own currency like Argentina and Iceland, they're able to enact their own policies to get out of bankruptcy. Greece on the other hand, couldn't do anything to fix their problems the way other bankrupt nations did.

Good point. The reason France and Germany care so much about Greece is because French and German banks made big loans to the country and they need Greece to pay off its debt more than anyone.

Still, in the end the issue of a country having its own currency is incidental to the general crises of capitalism. The global economy today, like it was in the 1930s, is so integrated that a financial crisis in the U.S. or Europe immediately spreads to the rest of the world. And periodic crises are an inescapable part of the capitalist system. No one denies this.

The trigger for the crisis, whether in 1929 or 2008, is usually expressed by some event in the stock market, but the deeper cause is overproduction. Sooner or later, the boom slows down, the market is saturated, and companies are producing more products than they have consumers for, so they start cutting back investment, and this is when savvy stock brokers see the writing on the wall.

So regardless of individual government policy, a global economic crisis was inevitable sooner or later and that's when people start to get more protective of their money. European banks that were happy to loan to Greece during the "irrational exuberance" of boom times suddenly want their money back and Greece finds it doesn't have that money. But most advanced capitalist countries are hugely in debt. This is precisely how the postwar economic boom was artificially extended over the last 30 years - through credit. But this just meant that when the crash finally came it would be even worse.

Greece is facing huge debt problems, but so are France, Britain, Italy, Spain, the U.S., Canada, and so on. That's why bankers and politicians are so worried that the Greek contagion will spread. But no matter how many bailouts Europe cobbles together, it's not a question of if Greece will default, but when. We're in for hard economic times ahead no matter which way you cut it.

The austerity cuts are not excuses. The fact is that they have no choice.

Correction: they have no choice if they work within the confines and logic of capitalism.

Also, the party that got the Greeks into this mess......were the Socialists.

What about New Democracy? PASOK and ND ruled the country alternately for the last 30 years. Anyway, just because PASOK call themselves "socialists" means nothing. The Chinese Communist Party call themselves communists, but there's nothing socialist about their strain of nationalist, authoritarian capitalism. Then there are the European "socialist" parties, which are really social democratic, like PASOK or the Socialist Party of France.

These parties are not Marxist revolutionary parties. They work within the confines of capitalism and believe it can be reformed. The problem is that if you buy into capitalism, you have to play by its rules, and in times of crisis when reforms become impossible, even a "Socialist" government will find itself able to offer nothing but counter-reforms and cuts. This is precisely what happened in Greece under George Papandreou, but it would have happened anywhere else a non-revolutionary government came to power.

The real role of "socialist" or social democratic governments in these times (much like the Democrats in the U.S.) is to ram through unpopular austerity policies while disarming the left politically.

As for reform, I don't mean gutting those programs. There will never be enough political will to do such a thing.

There is more than enough political will among the ruling elite, but they are to a certain degree afraid of the consequences - the popular anger that will erupt if beloved programs are cut. That's why you have things like the undemocratic "super-committee" in the States, which allows major cuts to Social Security and Medicare to be made while sitting politicians hide and cower behind the unelected deficit committee.

However, there needs to be reform to allow those programs to remain effective (as in still serve their purpose) and yet not sink their nations down with their costs (the high costs of entitlements is what is dragging down the fiscal state of the United States and Europe)

So you want the programs to remain effective while not sinking down nations with their costs? Ignoring all the public funds that are thrown down the toilet on things like corporate tax cuts and military spending, there's only one way way to do that in the current political environment: cut them. So whether you realize it or not, by reform you DO mean "gutting the programs". At any rate, this is all that's on offer.

But it sure as hell isn't the high cost of entitlements that's dragging down the fiscal state of the U.S. and Europe. In both countries you've had corporate tax rates and taxes on the wealthy being cut over and over in the last few decades. Someone had to make up that revenue, and that's why the working class has been squeezed more and more as we see a gradual transfer of wealth upwards.

And with the States, you're missing the elephant in the room: the "defense" (imperial) budget. It costs a lot to have a larger military than the rest of the world combined, to have hundreds of military bases all over the globe, to be waging six wars overseas, and to intervene in any country at any time. The Pentagon is notorious for overinflated weapons costs and bureaucratic waste, but right now they're cutting programs Americans actually depend on to keep paying for weapons to blow up people on the other side of the world.

You can't begin to have a serious conversation about tackling the debt crisis in the United States without drastically cutting the military budget. But that is off the table in the current, highly corrupt system.

[hippie_hunter]

Still, in the end the issue of a country having its own currency is incidental to the general crises of capitalism. The global economy today, like it was in the 1930s, is so integrated that a financial crisis in the U.S. or Europe immediately spreads to the rest of the world. And periodic crises are an inescapable part of the capitalist system. No one denies this.

The trigger for the crisis, whether in 1929 or 2008, is usually expressed by some event in the stock market, but the deeper cause is overproduction. Sooner or later, the boom slows down, the market is saturated, and companies are producing more products than they have consumers for, so they start cutting back investment, and this is when savvy stock brokers see the writing on the wall.
The 2008 crisis had nothing to do with the stock market. It all had to due with the banks taking on far too much debt due to government policies letting them get too big and promoting policies that people should own houses that they can't afford.

So regardless of individual government policy, a global economic crisis was inevitable sooner or later and that's when people start to get more protective of their money. European banks that were happy to loan to Greece during the "irrational exuberance" of boom times suddenly want their money back and Greece finds it doesn't have that money. But most advanced capitalist countries are hugely in debt. This is precisely how the postwar economic boom was artificially extended over the last 30 years - through credit. But this just meant that when the crash finally came it would be even worse.But those are due to bad government policies, not the ideals of capitalism.

Correction: they have no choice if they work within the confines and logic of capitalism.Sorry, but that's the system that we live in and it's not going to change. Communism died in 1991 and it's not coming back.

The real role of "socialist" or social democratic governments in these times (much like the Democrats in the U.S.) is to ram through unpopular austerity policies while disarming the left politically.I don't think so.

There is more than enough political will among the ruling elite, but they are to a certain degree afraid of the consequences - the popular anger that will erupt if beloved programs are cut. That's why you have things like the undemocratic "super-committee" in the States, which allows major cuts to Social Security and Medicare to be made while sitting politicians hide and cower behind the unelected deficit committee.1. There isn't will among the ruling elite because they fear that if they cut such programs they'll be voted out.

2. The super-committee in Congress was not allowed to touch Social Security and Medicare. Nancy Pelosi stuffed it with members like Jim Clyburn to ensure that it wouldn't be touched. Barack Obama pretty much demanded that they would not touch the entitlement programs.


But it sure as hell isn't the high cost of entitlements that's dragging down the fiscal state of the U.S. and Europe.Yes it is. The problem with our entitlement programs is that they were developed decades ago and do not take into account of today's world with the population aging at a much faster rate, increases in health problems such as obesity, living much longer, etc.

And with the States, you're missing the elephant in the room: the "defense" (imperial) budget. It costs a lot to have a larger military than the rest of the world combined, to have hundreds of military bases all over the globe, to be waging six wars overseas, and to intervene in any country at any time. The Pentagon is notorious for overinflated weapons costs and bureaucratic waste, but right now they're cutting programs Americans actually depend on to keep paying for weapons to blow up people on the other side of the world.We can certainly agree with that :o

You can't begin to have a serious conversation about tackling the debt crisis in the United States without drastically cutting the military budget. But that is off the table in the current, highly corrupt system.The military budget needs to be cut, much like our entitlement budget, the military budget of the United States is overly bloated, filled with waste, inefficient, and far too big. There really is no reason for the defense budget to be as large as it is.

[The Overlord]

"Keep them effective for the 21st Century". What does that actually mean? Apparently, it means cutting them to the bone. Come on, you're letting politicians' Orwellian excuses for the cuts cloud your judgment here. I think a better way to keep those programs "effective" would be NOT CUTTING THEM.



These are largely for appearances' sake - like in the U.S. when Obama promises to tie some corporate loophole for private jets at the same time he's cutting home heating subsidies for the poor - and then makes the melodramatic announcement that everyone is making sacrifices. If taxes for the wealthy have gone up in Greece, that's largely because Greece is not in control of its own destiny anymore, but rather a handful of unelected IMF bureaucrats are.

But it's obvious, contrary to your statements, that not everyone is suffering equally here. Corporate profits (and executive bonuses) in the U.S. and Canada are stronger than ever while working people suffer unemployment or declining wages and benefits. Why do they need to cut much-need social services at all when the people at the top have so much money that they're not doing anything with? This is the real question.



Again, why do we need entitlement "reform" (meaning cuts) in the first place? Why is it a bad thing for people to have decent wages and good pensions that they've earned? If the system is incapable of providing these things, then it's the system we should toss out, not poor and working people.

Why, because some of those programs were insane and there is no way the government could effort them. There was a program that said if a Greek government worker died, the pension would be given to the worker's daughter, until she is married. That means the pension will continue long after the original worker is dead. That is a huge drain of resources for Greek government, its a huge waste. Its not sustainable. Having programs like these make people dependent on the government and ensures the government has no real resources sustain these programs. Here are some articles dealing with the pension system in Greece and why it doesn't work. This pension system is not a necessity, its a luxury and one they cannot afford.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-17/greek-pension-time-bomb-may-be-difficult-to-defuse-for-unwed-daughters.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/02/greeces_generous_pensions

This is why I am not communist, communists seem to think the government is a magical entity, that has unlimited money, its not. I am Canadian and center left in Canada, which would put me to the left of the center left in the US. So I believe in something of welfare state, but that doesn't mean I believe the government should do everything for everyone. Relying on the government all the time is not a good way to live and the government having to take money from other institutions to pay for these programs is a bad way to run a country, it enslaves the country to these institutions. That's the problem with borrowing money, you are indebted to the person you borrow and you are endanger of losing your personal freedom to those you are indebted to.

For your talk about capitalism is in crisis, you seem to ignore the fact that communism has been in crisis since 1991 and that crisis has never been resolved. Until communists address that, communism will never be seen as a viable option.

[Axl Van Sixx]

The 2008 crisis had nothing to do with the stock market. It all had to due with the banks taking on far too much debt due to government policies letting them get too big and promoting policies that people should own houses that they can't afford.

Right. And which industry's lobbyists got the government to enact those policies?

But those are due to bad government policies, not the ideals of capitalism.

No, this same pattern repeats itself in every bust and boom cycle, which is an inescapable consequence of leaving the economy to the whims of the market.

Sorry, but that's the system that we live in and it's not going to change. Communism died in 1991 and it's not coming back.

Wow. No matter how many times I explain it, you guys can't seem to get it through your heads: Stalinism is not socialism, let alone communism.

What makes you so confident the system will never change? I'm sure at the beginning of this year Mubarak thought he was going to be the ruler of Egypt for a long time to come. The system has failed, people are suffering and sooner or later they're going to snap. We're already seeing giant protests all over the world. You think this anger is just going to go away?

I don't think so.

Doesn't really matter what you think, because that's exactly what's happening. Conservative governments unite the opposition; nominally "left" governments fool the people into thinking the state has their best interests at heart. That's how you get things like rank-and-file Democrats defending cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

1. There isn't will among the ruling elite because they fear that if they cut such programs they'll be voted out.

2. The super-committee in Congress was not allowed to touch Social Security and Medicare. Nancy Pelosi stuffed it with members like Jim Clyburn to ensure that it wouldn't be touched. Barack Obama pretty much demanded that they would not touch the entitlement programs.

And we all know how much a promise from Barack Obama is worth. This is the same guy who stuffed the panel with deficit hawks like Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles.

You're correct that the political elite is afraid to cut these programs or else they'll be voted out; even the supposedly anti-government Republicans know that. That's why they've put together this "super-committee", as a means of putting through the cuts while avoiding accountability. But if we're talking about the elite having the will to carry through these cuts...of course they have the will, otherwise why would we be talking about it in the first place?

Yes it is. The problem with our entitlement programs is that they were developed decades ago and do not take into account of today's world with the population aging at a much faster rate, increases in health problems such as obesity, living much longer, etc.

True, and they should take those things into account. I'm just not sure how you expect these programs to offer increased benefits while bringing down costs. Trying to square that circle won't work. It's really a question of the priorities in American society: do you want your money to go towards, for example, stealth bombers and corporate tax cuts, or towards helping sick people and the elderly?

Why, because some of those programs were insane and there is no way the government could effort them. There was a program that said if a Greek government worker died, the pension would be given to the worker's daughter, until she is married. That means the pension will continue long after the original worker is dead. That is a huge drain of resources for Greek government, its a huge waste. Its not sustainable. Having programs like these make people dependent on the government and ensures the government has no real resources sustain these programs. Here are some articles dealing with the pension system in Greece and why it doesn't work. This pension system is not a necessity, its a luxury and one they cannot afford.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-17/greek-pension-time-bomb-may-be-difficult-to-defuse-for-unwed-daughters.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/02/greeces_generous_pensions

This is why I am not communist, communists seem to think the government is a magical entity, that has unlimited money, its not. I am Canadian and center left in Canada, which would put me to the left of the center left in the US. So I believe in something of welfare state, but that doesn't mean I believe the government should do everything for everyone. Relying on the government all the time is not a good way to live and the government having to take money from other institutions to pay for these programs is a bad way to run a country, it enslaves the country to these institutions. That's the problem with borrowing money, you are indebted to the person you borrow and you are endanger of losing your personal freedom to those you are indebted to.

I don't want people to rely on the government. The role of the welfare state under capitalism is basically about helping the people who've lost out under the system. I want working people to run society for themselves and produce for human need rather than private profit - a system which guarantees full employment with good wages, benefits and pensions.

You're right that all this has to be paid for. We have the money to pay for this stuff already; it just gets siphoned off by the ultra-wealthy as part of their profits or tax cuts, or spent on ******** military/security programs that buttress the corporate state. We can use those funds for things that actually improve people's lives instead.

For your talk about capitalism is in crisis, you seem to ignore the fact that communism has been in crisis since 1991 and that crisis has never been resolved. Until communists address that, communism will never be seen as a viable option.

Jesus, I keep addressing it, over, and over, and over, and OVER again. You just don't want to listen. You think my argument - that those governments did not represent real socialism in the Marxist sense - is a cop-out. Well, I don't know what else you want me to say. I'm a Trotskyist. Marxism can explain the collapse of Stalinism, you're just not interested in that explanation. I'd be happy to go into more detail in another thread if that's what you want, but I can't keep explaining something to a person who refuses to listen.

"Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?" - Mark 8:18

Again, regardless of whether people believe in Marxism or not is irrelevant, because the things Marx talked about are happening right now. A crisis of capitalism on a global scale. Working people being squeezed more and more while the bosses get richer and richer. People have already started rebelling - in Egypt and Tunisia, in Greece, in Spain, in Russia, in the Occupy movement.

The question is where do we go from here? Most people don't have an answer to that question. Marxism does. It explains how we got into this mess and how we can get out. That's why it's still relevant today.

I also just want to point out...

- Communist Party of the Russian Federation is now the 2nd biggest party in the Duma and the main opposition to Putin
- Parties to the left of the "socialist" PASOK (15% support) now have a combined 37% support in Greek opinion polls
- The Orange Wave in Canada's federal election that brought the NDP to power
- Biggest general strike in Britain since 1926

Most people aren't Marxists. But they're fed up with the bitter realities of life under capitalism in the 21st century. And whatever you think, the reality is that class struggle exists and we see clear evidence of that every day.

[hippie_hunter]

Right. And which industry's lobbyists got the government to enact those policies?
Some within the financial industry. But it's also from politicians who had the idea of letting everyone follow the American Dream that everyone should own a house.

No, this same pattern repeats itself in every bust and boom cycle, which is an inescapable consequence of leaving the economy to the whims of the market.
Except you can directly trace the root of the problems. It has nothing to do with the bust and boom cycles. It all has to do with bad European policies such as governments lying about their finances to get into the Euro, government policies that allowed too much money to flow into weaker nations like Greece, government policies that let their entitlement programs become too bloated, etc.

When a government makes bad decision after bad decision, people don't want to invest in them.

Wow. No matter how many times I explain it, you guys can't seem to get it through your heads: Stalinism is not socialism, let alone communism.
I'm not saying that Stalinism is true Communism. But you can blame Stalinism for ruining the image of Communism forever. Human nature will always end up ruining Communism. And most people in Western societies prefer some form of a capitalist economy that allows them to obtain wealth.

What makes you so confident the system will never change? I'm sure at the beginning of this year Mubarak thought he was going to be the ruler of Egypt for a long time to come. The system has failed, people are suffering and sooner or later they're going to snap. We're already seeing giant protests all over the world. You think this anger is just going to go away?
Changing a political system is vastly different than changing an economic system. These protests aren't protests against capitalism as a concept. These protests, whether it be the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, the new protests in Russia are to demand their governments to be accountable, to end the corruption, to take on the inequalities in society.

Doesn't really matter what you think, because that's exactly what's happening. Conservative governments unite the opposition; nominally "left" governments fool the people into thinking the state has their best interests at heart. That's how you get things like rank-and-file Democrats defending cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
Except Democrats refuse to cut Social Security. Maybe you should pay attention to the situation a bit better but there haven't been any cuts to Social Security benefits in the United States. The Medicare cuts are coming from the Super-Committee's inability to make a deal and the cuts have to come somewhere (Medicare and the Defense budget primarily).

But if we're talking about the elite having the will to carry through these cuts...of course they have the will, otherwise why would we be talking about it in the first place?
Because the only way they will do the cuts is if they're forced. I.E. not having enough money to pay for them and the programs dragging down the fiscal state of our nations.

True, and they should take those things into account. I'm just not sure how you expect these programs to offer increased benefits while bringing down costs. Trying to square that circle won't work. It's really a question of the priorities in American society: do you want your money to go towards, for example, stealth bombers and corporate tax cuts, or towards helping sick people and the elderly?
I want my money to be used effectively. I don't want my country to end up like Europe. I'm tired of my country being the imperial policeman of the world. I'm tired of the idiots who run everything.

We can still have a strong national defense without the Defense budget being as absurdly huge as they are. We can still have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid run efficiently while not being as bloated as they are today (by reforming them for the 21st Century). We can set up our tax code so that the United States can be competitive in the global economy. That is what I want.

[The Overlord]

I don't want people to rely on the government. The role of the welfare state under capitalism is basically about helping the people who've lost out under the system. I want working people to run society for themselves and produce for human need rather than private profit - a system which guarantees full employment with good wages, benefits and pensions.

You're right that all this has to be paid for. We have the money to pay for this stuff already; it just gets siphoned off by the ultra-wealthy as part of their profits or tax cuts, or spent on ******** military/security programs that buttress the corporate state. We can use those funds for things that actually improve people's lives instead.

Too bad we have to deal with the system we have now, rather then a hypothetical one. Taxing the super rich in a country just means they will move somewhere else, it doesn't fix anything. Wishing for a better future is nice, but it doesn't change the cold hard reality of today. In today's world, governments have limited resources and have to spend money carefully and that will not change for a long time.



Jesus, I keep addressing it, over, and over, and over, and OVER again. You just don't want to listen. You think my argument - that those governments did not represent real socialism in the Marxist sense - is a cop-out. Well, I don't know what else you want me to say. I'm a Trotskyist. Marxism can explain the collapse of Stalinism, you're just not interested in that explanation. I'd be happy to go into more detail in another thread if that's what you want, but I can't keep explaining something to a person who refuses to listen.

"Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?" - Mark 8:18

And what makes a Trotskyist more legitimate then a Maoist? Communists can't even agree on what communist, communism has splintered into different factions who get involved in petty infighting, they can't even agree with themselves, how are they supposed to organize a workers revolution?

That quote may work better if I was religious.

I have heard your explanation and I think its a cop out. I hear it and I reject it completely, that's different from not hearing. Communists do not have do any real reflection or take responsibly for the past with this lame excuse, "its wasn't real communism, so we don't have reflect on the failure of the USSR or take any real lessons from it." It seems like an easy recipe to repeat the mistakes of the past, rather then taking ownership of these mistakes.

I'm beginning to think modern communists treat communism as a religion, with Marx as an all knowing prophet and his works are sacred texts. Its all a matter of faith rather then fact or reason.



Again, regardless of whether people believe in Marxism or not is irrelevant, because the things Marx talked about are happening right now. A crisis of capitalism on a global scale. Working people being squeezed more and more while the bosses get richer and richer. People have already started rebelling - in Egypt and Tunisia, in Greece, in Spain, in Russia, in the Occupy movement.

The question is where do we go from here? Most people don't have an answer to that question. Marxism does. It explains how we got into this mess and how we can get out. That's why it's still relevant today.



A solution that has never really proven itself, a solution that seems to work better in theory then in practice. You don't have any real hard evidence that communism works, everything on that score is hypothetic. Its like Objectivists who say real capitalism has never been really tired, that if you try real capitalism and get rid of all government except defense, everything will be great. I don't believe in either of those things, because I don't believe solutions to problems, really life is not as simple as Objectivism or Marxism would have people believe.

See I'm not a capitalist persay, but I am skeptic and a cynic and I believe communism to be an idealistic pipe dream, like many other ideologies. See there is the thing, I don't trust the capitalist class, I don't trust the working class and I don't trust communists. I do not trust groups period. I think the working class is just as base and mercenary as the capitalist class. I think all ideologies should be smashed with the hammer of skepticism, again and again to prove their worth. I give no ideology the benefit of the doubt and I don't trust ideologues. I don't see why communism should be spared this hammer.

Perception is everything in politics and in the perception of most people Marxism is a failure. Ignore that perception at your peril. Whether you like or not, communism is seen as having a track record and the track record is poor. Ignoring that and just criticizing capitalism gets you ultimately no where. I have only one real defense for capitalism, people are greedy and petty so they want a greedy and petty system to follow their pretty and greedy desires. That's not a real defense though, see that's thing with me, I don't really believe in the virtues capitalism, just happen to have such a low opinion of the human race that I think they want a system like this.

I have studied Russian history, with the failure of war communism, Lenin brought in a system of limited capitalism, where grain was allowed to be sold on an open market. the end result was rich peasants and poor peasants, with the poor peasants often wanting to be rich peasants. It seems like the desire to become petty bourgeois never really went away.

Orwell, though a left winger, seemed to have no real faith in the masses, in the 1984, Orwell portrayed the proles as easily duped idiots who would follow a terrible status quo with the promise of cheap booze and porn.

That's my problem, I'm nominally left wing, but my cynicism prevents me from going any further left then I am today. I am not a nihilist though, I have moments of optimism but I always have a healthy skepticism about everything, I don't believe in things that aren't proven and communism has never really been proven.


I also just want to point out...

- Communist Party of the Russian Federation is now the 2nd biggest party in the Duma and the main opposition to Putin
- Parties to the left of the "socialist" PASOK (15% support) now have a combined 37% support in Greek opinion polls
- The Orange Wave in Canada's federal election that brought the NDP to power
- Biggest general strike in Britain since 1926

Most people aren't Marxists. But they're fed up with the bitter realities of life under capitalism in the 21st century. And whatever you think, the reality is that class struggle exists and we see clear evidence of that every day.

This doesn't mean anything, worker dissolution led to the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s in Germany and the rise of the religious fundamentalists in Iran in 1979. Worker dissolution doesn't instantly lead to a communist revolution.

Capitalism was in a bigger crisis in the 1930s and yet there was no communist revolution in the west. Marx seemed to predicted that communism was right around that corner, but it hasn't happened yet.

The NDP coming in second in Canada and the communist coming in second in Russia are not signs that an international workers revolution is at hand. NDP didn't win and the communists didn't win in Russia. I like NDP personally, but I don't think voting for them made more likely to believe in communism.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Some within the financial industry. But it's also from politicians who had the idea of letting everyone follow the American Dream that everyone should own a house.

Ah, see what happens when you follow the money? But do you really think politicians caused the crisis? Governments are a vessel for special interests, and given their greater financial resources, that generally means business interests. Encouraging everybody to own a home wasn't the product of some politician's earnest wish for them to share in the American Dream; it was a sop to the banking and real estate sectors that were (at the time) making tons of money by making subprime loans and selling homes to people who couldn't afford them. But I'm glad you at least acknowledge that the parasitical financial sector played a key role here.

Except you can directly trace the root of the problems. It has nothing to do with the bust and boom cycles. It all has to do with bad European policies such as governments lying about their finances to get into the Euro, government policies that allowed too much money to flow into weaker nations like Greece, government policies that let their entitlement programs become too bloated, etc.

Nothing to do with the boom and bust cycles? Come on. Obviously it's because we're in an economic downturn that everyone suddenly started wanting their loans back.

Did you read the article I posted earlier on "the myth of the 'lazy Greek workers' "? Entitlements in countries like Greece are less generous than in Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe. This so-called problem of bloated "entitlements" is just an excuse to squeeze programs that the ruling class has always seen as a drain on profitable investment (for them).

Whatever individual government policies were pursued, you have to remember that these were capitalist governments making choices that seemed to make sense during the boom times. Countries like Greece wanted to get in on the party and join the eurozone, and the richer countries were only too happy to let on board. This is all part of the irrational exuberance of any capitalist boom, but sooner or later the party has to stop.

How is this not directly rooted in the nature of capitalism? This is how the system works - boom and bust, and government policies are largely a reflection of economic interests during those boom and bust periods.

When a government makes bad decision after bad decision, people don't want to invest in them.

French and German banks seemed fine with investing in Greece back when the global economy was roaring along, despite the warning signs. This is what fanboys might call a retcon.

I'm not saying that Stalinism is true Communism. But you can blame Stalinism for ruining the image of Communism forever. Human nature will always end up ruining Communism. And most people in Western societies prefer some form of a capitalist economy that allows them to obtain wealth.

Yeah, Stalin made the job of any honest communist a million times more difficult. But forever? I would have to say never say never. You probably wouldn't have imagined back in 1991 that the main winners of a Russian election 20 years later would be the Communist Party.

Also, people's idea of a capitalist economy and the reality is quite different. People watch TV shows and movies that repeat the hoary old myth that anybody can be rich if they work hard and play by the rules. The fact is, everybody can't be rich. The people who are making the most obscene wealth right now crashed the global economy and paid no consequences for their actions, while hundreds of millions of people who worked hard and did play by the rules are facing unemployment, poverty and destitution. I agree with George Carlin: "they call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."

The fact is that under a socialist society that distributed wealth more equally, the vast majority of people would be far better off than they are now. But it's part of the false consciousness of our time that too many struggling people still buy into the fantasy that they can get rich and leave behind the misery of their ordinary lives. Why don't we work on improving the lives of the vast majority instead so their lives don't suck?

Changing a political system is vastly different than changing an economic system. These protests aren't protests against capitalism as a concept. These protests, whether it be the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, the new protests in Russia are to demand their governments to be accountable, to end the corruption, to take on the inequalities in society.

The protests generally aren't against capitalism as a concept (although you must have missed a good portion of the signs at Occupy Wall Street). But they can all be traced to the consequences of the system. To take one example, would the U.S. have kept brutal Arab dictators in place for decades unless authoritarian rule guaranteed greater profits for its private corporations - thus necessitating an Arab Spring?

Except Democrats refuse to cut Social Security. Maybe you should pay attention to the situation a bit better but there haven't been any cuts to Social Security benefits in the United States. The Medicare cuts are coming from the Super-Committee's inability to make a deal and the cuts have to come somewhere (Medicare and the Defense budget primarily).

You're letting the Dems' disingenuous rhetoric fool you. Of course they'll say they don't want Social Security cut, but the whole point of that committee is to find a backdoor way to do it. And you acknowledge Medicare is going to be cut. The whole point is, why are we constantly talking about these cuts in the first place? I reject an economic system in which real people suffer for the abstract concept of "fiscal responsibility".

Because the only way they will do the cuts is if they're forced. I.E. not having enough money to pay for them and the programs dragging down the fiscal state of our nations.

But they never talk about cutting the military in the same way, and most of those wars are optional, whereas medical care for the elderly is a necessity. And we keep hearing about more corporate tax cuts at the same time when the deficit is supposed to be such a HUGE problem that they're willing to let Grandma start eating cat food again. How do you explain that two-faced hypocrisy?

I want my money to be used effectively. I don't want my country to end up like Europe. I'm tired of my country being the imperial policeman of the world. I'm tired of the idiots who run everything.

We can still have a strong national defense without the Defense budget being as absurdly huge as they are. We can still have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid run efficiently while not being as bloated as they are today (by reforming them for the 21st Century). We can set up our tax code so that the United States can be competitive in the global economy. That is what I want.

I agree with almost all of that. But your concept of the need to cut these social programs - and the fact that you frame these cuts using the Orwellian and meaningless buzzphrase, "reforming them for the 21st century" - indicates that you've fallen for the politicians' rhetoric hook, line and sinker. "Reforming them for the 21st Century" means CUTTING THEM. And how is that supposed to help people deal with all the increased health concerns you mentioned earlier they didn't need to worry about before, like obesity, increased old age, etc.?

People need to draw a line in the sand - NO CUTS. These programs need to be expanded, not cut, and the money can come from shrinking the bloated military budget and taxing the rich.

[Crazy Quilt]

You're letting the Dems' disingenuous rhetoric fool you. Of course they'll say they don't want Social Security cut, but the whole point of that committee is to find a backdoor way to do it. And you acknowledge Medicare is going to be cut. The whole point is, why are we constantly talking about these cuts in the first place? I reject an economic system in which real people suffer for the abstract concept of "fiscal responsibility".



But they never talk about cutting the military in the same way, and most of those wars are optional, whereas medical care for the elderly is a necessity. And we keep hearing about more corporate tax cuts at the same time when the deficit is supposed to be such a HUGE problem that they're willing to let Grandma start eating cat food again. How do you explain that two-faced hypocrisy?


:applaud

On the Democrats (of course) trying to find backdoor ways to make cuts to social spending: Remember, Reagan couldn't have gutted welfare. It took a Democrat(Clinton) to do that.

[Axl Van Sixx]

:applaud

On the Democrats (of course) trying to find backdoor ways to make cuts to social spending: Remember, Reagan couldn't have gutted welfare. It took a Democrat(Clinton) to do that.

Exactly, and this was my point above. Just like only Nixon could go to China, only a charismatic black Democrat can cut Social Security.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Overlord, thanks for letting me know where you're coming from. It's obvious that there's no point in my continuing this argument any longer, because as you yourself acknowledge, you're far too jaded to believe in the potential betterment of humanity. I hope one day you find reason to become a little more optimistic. :yay:

Working within the system only gets you so far. At some point you have to take a stand. I get that a lot of people don't agree with that, but that's what I believe. I don't think progressives will get anywhere in the American political system, for example, until they abandon the big business parties once and for all and the unions form a mass party of labor.

I do feel the need to respond to a couple of things you said, but otherwise that's it from me:

And what makes a Trotskyist more legitimate then a Maoist? Communists can't even agree on what communist, communism has splintered into different factions who get involved in petty infighting, they can't even agree with themselves, how are they supposed to organize a workers revolution?

Short answer: we're internationalist defenders of workers everywhere, not nationalist defenders of an authoritarian bureaucracy. Also things like Trotskyists supporting workers' democracy and fighting the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, whereas Maoists are apologists for Stalin as well as catastrophes like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

The answer to your question is: the workers will have the revolution themselves - like they did in Egypt and Tunisia, and like they're on the verge of doing in Greece. A Marxist organization merely provides some guidance. As Trotsky put it:

"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

I have heard your explanation and I think its a cop out. I hear it and I reject it completely, that's different from not hearing. Communists do not have do any real reflection or take responsibly for the past with this lame excuse, "its wasn't real communism, so we don't have reflect on the failure of the USSR or take any real lessons from it." It seems like an easy recipe to repeat the mistakes of the past, rather then taking ownership of these mistakes.

If you haven't read Marx or Lenin for yourself, or in particular, if you haven't read any Trotsky, then sad to say, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Read The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm) and then maybe I'll care about your critique of Marxism.

I'm beginning to think modern communists treat communism as a religion, with Marx as an all knowing prophet and his works are sacred texts. Its all a matter of faith rather then fact or reason.

I used to make that comparison before I became a Marxist. But it's only the ultra-left sectarians that repeat what Marx or Lenin or Trotsky said a hundred years ago and expect it to apply equally to the events of today. Marxism has nothing in common with rigid dogma. It's a scientific method that we can use to make sense of the world we live in, and like any science we need to continually adapt it to new information. But there's a difference between shifting tactics and straying from core principles.

For the record, guys, I'm not expecting a communist revolution to break out tomorrow and have people all over the world dressed in red and waving around the hammer and sickle. Please, give me some credit. What I do believe is that as the effects of the global economic crisis become more and more severe, working class anger will keep building and we will see the growth of new leftist currents. I'm working with other Marxists to try as much as possible to expand the influence of these ideas because I think that's the only way we'll ever really escape the miseries and horror of capitalism. It's a very long-term view. Maybe something will come of it, maybe nothing ever will. But I feel like I'm doing the right thing in the best way I can, and that's enough for me.

[The Overlord]

Overlord, thanks for letting me know where you're coming from. It's obvious that there's no point in my continuing this argument any longer, because as you yourself acknowledge, you're far too jaded to believe in the potential betterment of humanity. I hope one day you find reason to become a little more optimistic. :yay:

I can say I shouldn't argue with you anymore, because you are blind idealist who ignores certain rash realities, but I'm not going to say because do this fun rather then trying to convince anyone of anything. I think argue for fun more then anything else, plus being a cynic makes me honest, it doesn't invalidate my criticism. Just because I don't believe me in your theory, doesn't make my criticism of it invalid. it just means you don't like it. Sometimes a cynic is right and sometimes an optimist is right, I just happen to fit one side more then the other.





Short answer: we're internationalist defenders of workers everywhere, not nationalist defenders of an authoritarian bureaucracy. Also things like Trotskyists supporting workers' democracy and fighting the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, whereas Maoists are apologists for Stalin as well as catastrophes like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

The answer to your question is: the workers will have the revolution themselves - like they did in Egypt and Tunisia, and like they're on the verge of doing in Greece. A Marxist organization merely provides some guidance. As Trotsky put it:

"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

That's just opinion, some Maoist is going to come up with some explanation why they are vanguard of communism and you are false communists. It hearkens to my ultimate point, communists can't even agree, how is their supposed to be a united workers movement when your ideology is split into factions?

Anarchists would also decry your defense of Trotsky and say they are the true Marxists, they believe in a purer form of Marxism then you.

Its all just opinion, just like there is no way say one version of Christianity is better then another, there is no objective say one faction of Marxism is better then another.




If you haven't read Marx or Lenin for yourself, or in particular, if you haven't read any Trotsky, then sad to say, you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Read The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm) and then maybe I'll care about your critique of Marxism.

Its pretty arrogant of you to assume that I haven't studied Marxism just because I am critical of it. I took a course on Russian history, took a course on Marxism taught by a Marxist and I read the communist Manifesto twice. Just because I don't agree with communism doesn't mean I agree with it. How much more do I have study before my criticism becomes valid? I don't see why I have to prove how much I read Marxism to you to have my criticism of it validated. My criticism of its valid regardless of that.



I used to make that comparison before I became a Marxist. But it's only the ultra-left sectarians that repeat what Marx or Lenin or Trotsky said a hundred years ago and expect it to apply equally to the events of today. Marxism has nothing in common with rigid dogma. It's a scientific method that we can use to make sense of the world we live in, and like any science we need to continually adapt it to new information. But there's a difference between shifting tactics and straying from core principles.

It comes off a bit like pseudo science to me, personally. There is no real evidence it that works, its just a theory, not fact. I have never seen evidence that is compatible with human nature.


For the record, guys, I'm not expecting a communist revolution to break out tomorrow and have people all over the world dressed in red and waving around the hammer and sickle. Please, give me some credit. What I do believe is that as the effects of the global economic crisis become more and more severe, working class anger will keep building and we will see the growth of new leftist currents. I'm working with other Marxists to try as much as possible to expand the influence of these ideas because I think that's the only way we'll ever really escape the miseries and horror of capitalism. It's a very long-term view. Maybe something will come of it, maybe nothing ever will. But I feel like I'm doing the right thing in the best way I can, and that's enough for me.

Hey you can believe in whatever you want, I'm cynic, so when things turn out right I can pleasantly surprised. Its not that I don't want the world to be a bad place, I just don't think people have the tools to fix it as much as you want without something else going wrong in the process. I don't want to be a cynic, but I can't help it, for you everything that happens confirms your Marxist beliefs, for me almost everything confirms my cynicism. Its just a difference perception, maybe you are right, maybe I am, maybe we both are wrong. The difference is I don't be right in my cynicism, so sometimes I let flashes of optimism in. I think you are so want to believe Marxism, you think everything confirm it and lose your objectivity. I think you are cherry picking recent events that confirm your conclusion and ignoring facts that contradict your conclusion.

[hippie_hunter]

Ah, see what happens when you follow the money? But do you really think politicians caused the crisis? Governments are a vessel for special interests, and given their greater financial resources, that generally means business interests. Encouraging everybody to own a home wasn't the product of some politician's earnest wish for them to share in the American Dream; it was a sop to the banking and real estate sectors that were (at the time) making tons of money by making subprime loans and selling homes to people who couldn't afford them. But I'm glad you at least acknowledge that the parasitical financial sector played a key role here.
Despite what you may think, there are politicians out there who believe in the American dream.

Nothing to do with the boom and bust cycles? Come on. Obviously it's because we're in an economic downturn that everyone suddenly started wanting their loans back.Last time I checked investors wanting their loans paid back when they are due is a reasonable demand.

French and German banks seemed fine with investing in Greece back when the global economy was roaring along, despite the warning signs. This is what fanboys might call a retcon.And their poor decisions is biting them in the ass now. And rightfully so.

Yeah, Stalin made the job of any honest communist a million times more difficult. But forever? I would have to say never say never. You probably wouldn't have imagined back in 1991 that the main winners of a Russian election 20 years later would be the Communist Party.Russian voters voting for the Communists is less along the lines of Russians supporting Communism and more along the lines of their discontent with Putin and the Communists being the only legitimate opposition to him.

You're letting the Dems' disingenuous rhetoric fool you. Of course they'll say they don't want Social Security cut, but the whole point of that committee is to find a backdoor way to do it. And you acknowledge Medicare is going to be cut. The whole point is, why are we constantly talking about these cuts in the first place? I reject an economic system in which real people suffer for the abstract concept of "fiscal responsibility".Except it's fact. Social Security was not on the table for cuts on the super committee. Democrats refused to cave into Republican demands for Social Security cuts or reform.

I agree with almost all of that. But your concept of the need to cut these social programs - and the fact that you frame these cuts using the Orwellian and meaningless buzzphrase, "reforming them for the 21st century" - indicates that you've fallen for the politicians' rhetoric hook, line and sinker. "Reforming them for the 21st Century" means CUTTING THEM. And how is that supposed to help people deal with all the increased health concerns you mentioned earlier they didn't need to worry about before, like obesity, increased old age, etc.?By reforming them for the 21st Century, I mean that we have to take into account that the Western nations have an aging population due to the Baby Boom after World War II, people living longer due to improvements in medicine, modern day health concerns, etc. These programs were designed back when the world and society were very different and due to politicians refusing to reform, they have become relics that are dragging the the fiscal state of these nations.

Sorry guy, but Social Security wasn't designed to take into account people living 20+ years after the age of 65. It wasn't designed to the massive population boom. Our health programs weren't designed to take on modern day health concerns like diabetes and obesity. And because of that, they're becoming unable to deal with such problems.

What would you rather have? A reformed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that can actually handle the 21st Century, or none of those programs because the governments of the world let them go bankrupt and fiscally insolvent.

People need to draw a line in the sand - NO CUTS. These programs need to be expanded, not cut, and the money can come from shrinking the bloated military budget and taxing the rich.That is utterly unrealistic. Even if you taxed the rich at 100%, it still wouldn't be enough to fund the government for a year. And while the defense budget takes up a good chunk of the federal budget, Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid take up even more. With your calls for expanding such programs while not reforming them, cutting the military budget would do nothing to fix the problem with the fiscal state of those programs.

[Axl Van Sixx]

I can say I shouldn't argue with you anymore, because you are blind idealist who ignores certain rash realities, but I'm not going to say because do this fun rather then trying to convince anyone of anything. I think argue for fun more then anything else, plus being a cynic makes me honest, it doesn't invalidate my criticism. Just because I don't believe me in your theory, doesn't make my criticism of it invalid. it just means you don't like it. Sometimes a cynic is right and sometimes an optimist is right, I just happen to fit one side more then the other.

Hey you can believe in whatever you want, I'm cynic, so when things turn out right I can pleasantly surprised. Its not that I don't want the world to be a bad place, I just don't think people have the tools to fix it as much as you want without something else going wrong in the process. I don't want to be a cynic, but I can't help it, for you everything that happens confirms your Marxist beliefs, for me almost everything confirms my cynicism. Its just a difference perception, maybe you are right, maybe I am, maybe we both are wrong. The difference is I don't be right in my cynicism, so sometimes I let flashes of optimism in. I think you are so want to believe Marxism, you think everything confirm it and lose your objectivity. I think you are cherry picking recent events that confirm your conclusion and ignoring facts that contradict your conclusion.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in my first paragraph, I really meant what I said. Takes all kinds to make a world, right?

But it took me a long time to get to where I am now politically. As much as I hate to say this, back in 2001-2003 I thought Bush was doing a generally good job and I supported the Iraq War (give me a break, I was young, naive and influenced by the post-9/11 atmosphere). Then I started to realize that was ******** and went back to where I was going before, a bit left of centre. I liked the idea of reasoning with one's opponents and still thought it was possible to reform the system. Even as things got worse and worse, I still thought as you do now about communism - that it was a failed experiment, end of story. But then I thought you might take some of the best parts of capitalism and communism and combine them - "market socialism". One book arguing for market socialism was enough to convince me that theory was incorrect.

My socialist tendencies were gathering strength by 2008, but I still thought Obama might just be able to turn this thing around. Like so many people, I soon realized he was a total con artist and corporate tool. So after all this, and wondering why liberal and social democratic leaders always seem to sell out in power, and seeing the global economic crisis, the wars and the obscene bailouts, I finally came around to Marxism. But I still flirted briefly with ultra-leftist tendencies (Communist Party of Canada, something called the Socialist Equality Party no one's ever heard of) before realizing that the only way to go was to orient towards the traditional mass organizations of the working class, and in Canada that means the trade unions and the NDP.

So it's not like I found this sterile, unchanging ideology and I cotton-pick evidence and try to make everything conform to it. I pride myself in critical thought. Every day I read far more than Marxist websites - I look at progressive blogs, "liberal" papers, and hard right conservative stuff like the National Post and Fox News. I spent months last year reading Ayn Rand. All I'm trying to say is I'm not a blind ideologue, but I've thought long and hard about this stuff and come to the conclusion that Marxism has the best explanation for why the world sucks so much right now and how to solve those problems. But I'm fully aware very few people share that viewpoint at the moment.

P.S. I also like arguing for the sake of arguing, but sometimes I get too involved and take it too seriously.

Its pretty arrogant of you to assume that I haven't studied Marxism just because I am critical of it. I took a course on Russian history, took a course on Marxism taught by a Marxist and I read the communist Manifesto twice. Just because I don't agree with communism doesn't mean I agree with it. How much more do I have study before my criticism becomes valid? I don't see why I have to prove how much I read Marxism to you to have my criticism of it validated. My criticism of its valid regardless of that.

Honestly, dude, you just have to read The Revolution Betrayed. It's Trotsky's most important work, and it explains why the Soviet Union degenerated into a totalitarian bureaucracy under Stalin. That's all you have to study. I feel like anyone who's read that book will at least have a more informed view of why the USSR turned out the way it did. Hopefully you'll give it a try sometime.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Despite what you may think, there are politicians out there who believe in the American dream.

Call me cynical.

Last time I checked investors wanting their loans paid back when they are due is a reasonable demand.

No argument there.

And their poor decisions is biting them in the ass now. And rightfully so.

It's not so much that it's biting the bankers in the ass; most of them are rich enough they won't be living on the streets in any case. The problem is the people of these countries who have to endure a permanently lower standard of living because their governments have assumed the debt owed to the bankers and are making the working class pay for it.

Russian voters voting for the Communists is less along the lines of Russians supporting Communism and more along the lines of their discontent with Putin and the Communists being the only legitimate opposition to him.

I agree. Even Alan Woods acknowledges this.

Except it's fact. Social Security was not on the table for cuts on the super committee. Democrats refused to cave into Republican demands for Social Security cuts or reform.

Incorrect. Obama was the first one to touch the third rail of American politics. He was the one who first put Social Security cuts on the table.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-puts-medicare-social-security-cuts-table-031442907.html

Democrats refusing to cave? That's like Republicans supporting abortion; maybe once in a blue moon. Power has been put in the hands of the super-committee so the Dems can say they still have clean hands.

By reforming them for the 21st Century, I mean that we have to take into account that the Western nations have an aging population due to the Baby Boom after World War II, people living longer due to improvements in medicine, modern day health concerns, etc. These programs were designed back when the world and society were very different and due to politicians refusing to reform, they have become relics that are dragging the the fiscal state of these nations.

Sorry guy, but Social Security wasn't designed to take into account people living 20+ years after the age of 65. It wasn't designed to the massive population boom. Our health programs weren't designed to take on modern day health concerns like diabetes and obesity. And because of that, they're becoming unable to deal with such problems.

What would you rather have? A reformed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that can actually handle the 21st Century, or none of those programs because the governments of the world let them go bankrupt and fiscally insolvent.

Look, I'm really not interested in hearing politicians who never met a war or military program they didn't like, and who squandered at least $16 trillion (http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/) on bailouts for Wall Street, suddenly come to us and say there isn't enough money for vital social programs. This idea - that we can cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid or not have them at all - is a false choice presented to us by a government completely captured by financial and corporate interests. It's time to strike at the real root of the problem, not sit back and suffer the gradual destruction of the social safety net.

That is utterly unrealistic. Even if you taxed the rich at 100%, it still wouldn't be enough to fund the government for a year. And while the defense budget takes up a good chunk of the federal budget, Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid take up even more. With your calls for expanding such programs while not reforming them, cutting the military budget would do nothing to fix the problem with the fiscal state of those programs.

Cutting the military budget would do NOTHING? That's a pretty big statement. Anyway, I had a feeling our debate would end up coming down to you accusing me of being "unrealistic". In order to get the thread back on track towards the European Union, let me offer my final reply to all accusations of a lack of realism by quoting from Trotsky's Transitional Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#sg):

Property owners and their lawyers will prove the “unrealizability” of these demands. Smaller, especially ruined capitalists, in addition will refer to their account ledgers. The workers categorically denounce such conclusions and references. The question is not one of a “normal” collision between opposing material interests. The question is one of guarding the proletariat from decay, demoralization and ruin. The question is one of life or death of the only creative and progressive class, and by that token of the future of mankind. If capitalism is incapable of satisfying the demands inevitably arising from the calamities generated by itself, then let it perish. “Realizability” or “unrealizability” is in the given instance a question of the relationship of forces, which can be decided only by the struggle. By means of this struggle, no matter what immediate practical successes may be, the workers will best come to understand the necessity of liquidating capitalist slavery.

[The Overlord]

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in my first paragraph, I really meant what I said. Takes all kinds to make a world, right?

But it took me a long time to get to where I am now politically. As much as I hate to say this, back in 2001-2003 I thought Bush was doing a generally good job and I supported the Iraq War (give me a break, I was young, naive and influenced by the post-9/11 atmosphere). Then I started to realize that was ******** and went back to where I was going before, a bit left of centre. I liked the idea of reasoning with one's opponents and still thought it was possible to reform the system. Even as things got worse and worse, I still thought as you do now about communism - that it was a failed experiment, end of story. But then I thought you might take some of the best parts of capitalism and communism and combine them - "market socialism". One book arguing for market socialism was enough to convince me that theory was incorrect.

My socialist tendencies were gathering strength by 2008, but I still thought Obama might just be able to turn this thing around. Like so many people, I soon realized he was a total con artist and corporate tool. So after all this, and wondering why liberal and social democratic leaders always seem to sell out in power, and seeing the global economic crisis, the wars and the obscene bailouts, I finally came around to Marxism. But I still flirted briefly with ultra-leftist tendencies (Communist Party of Canada, something called the Socialist Equality Party no one's ever heard of) before realizing that the only way to go was to orient towards the traditional mass organizations of the working class, and in Canada that means the trade unions and the NDP.

So it's not like I found this sterile, unchanging ideology and I cotton-pick evidence and try to make everything conform to it. I pride myself in critical thought. Every day I read far more than Marxist websites - I look at progressive blogs, "liberal" papers, and hard right conservative stuff like the National Post and Fox News. I spent months last year reading Ayn Rand. All I'm trying to say is I'm not a blind ideologue, but I've thought long and hard about this stuff and come to the conclusion that Marxism has the best explanation for why the world sucks so much right now and how to solve those problems. But I'm fully aware very few people share that viewpoint at the moment.

P.S. I also like arguing for the sake of arguing, but sometimes I get too involved and take it too seriously.

Well we different political journey in life, people have different paths and perceptions. Unlike every people, I don't think Marxism is evil or that Marx is to blame for everything that was done in his name. I don't think Nietzsche should be blamed for what the Nazis did either. I don't believe in Marxism in a structural manner, I think it has structural flaws. Since I have rather cynical concept of human nature I'm going to be a bit biased against its conclusions. I always thought Marxism as a work of criticism was more viable then any solutions it presented. In a certain way I am somewhat objective in that I think of almost every positives and negatives an ideology and even if I ultimately reject it, I can still see positive aspects to it. I am not libertarian either, but I see some positives and like Marxism some of its criticism is interesting. I kinda like Ron Paul, even though I don't agree with his ultimate conclusion.

See I don't hate communism like some others do, my criticism is more dispassionate then others. I look it at from the clinical standpoint, cynicism is my only real bias, rather some great hatred of communism or great love of the current system.


Honestly, dude, you just have to read The Revolution Betrayed. It's Trotsky's most important work, and it explains why the Soviet Union degenerated into a totalitarian bureaucracy under Stalin. That's all you have to study. I feel like anyone who's read that book will at least have a more informed view of why the USSR turned out the way it did. Hopefully you'll give it a try sometime.

It can't hurt to read it, I think I would approach it with a more critical eye, being a skeptic. I don't see Trotsky as the hero you see him as. But one book from 1937 doesn't change the negative image people have in their mind about communism, communism wasn't tried once, but several times. I have heard North Korea has been described as a country where the government is based off of Marxism if it was interpreted by a mad man.

All the countries who tried communism failed in one way or another. Even a lot of the rebel Marxist movement have been connected with unseemly actions, FARC is guilty of a lot of human rights abuses . Its not just Stalin that discredited communism and he is not an isolated case, its too easy to blame all the failures of communism on one evil man and his followers, the answer is more complex then that.

Also its not like Trotsky has not received some valid criticism over the years, Emma Goldman has been pretty critical of Trotsky. Noam Chomsky was also critical of Trotsky. These two are hardly right wing reactionaries, so why would their criticism be invalid?

The Negative perception of communism, due to the terrible acts done in the name of Marxism, is its greatest obstacle.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Also its not like Trotsky has not received some valid criticism over the years, Emma Goldman has been pretty critical of Trotsky. Noam Chomsky was also critical of Trotsky. These two are hardly right wing reactionaries, so why would their criticism be invalid?

Emma Goldman is an anarchist, and I have fundamental disagreements with that philosophy.

Chomsky is awesome, but even he admits he hasn't read much about Marxism or works by Marxist thinkers.

The Negative perception of communism, due to the terrible acts done in the name of Marxism, is its greatest obstacle.

Bingo. 100% agree.

[hippie_hunter]

Cutting the military budget would do NOTHING? That's a pretty big statement. Anyway, I had a feeling our debate would end up coming down to you accusing me of being "unrealistic". In order to get the thread back on track towards the European Union, let me offer my final reply to all accusations of a lack of realism by quoting from Trotsky's Transitional Program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/tp-text.htm#sg):
Do you have any idea on just how much entitlement programs cost? They are a lot of money. If you expand upon them the way you say they should, cutting the military budget and taxing the rich would still not be enough to pay for them.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Do you have any idea on just how much entitlement programs cost? They are a lot of money. If you expand upon them the way you say they should, cutting the military budget and taxing the rich would still not be enough to pay for them.

I know how much they cost, but the Pentagon sucks up more of the budget. Half of every discretionary dollar spent goes to the military.

Looks like the EU is moving towards greater integration (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/eu-treaty-idUSL6E7ND12Z20111213) for all but Britain and greater centralized control over national budgets. I imagine this will lead to more of what we've already seen in Greece and Italy - an unelected group of bankers overruling the will of the people in sovereign nations.

[hippie_hunter]

I know how much they cost, but the Pentagon sucks up more of the budget. Half of every discretionary dollar spent goes to the military.
I don't know where you get your facts from but the Pentagon typically takes up 20% of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined take up over 40%. And this is not including other entitlement programs like unemployment, welfare, CHIP, federal housing, etc.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p186/hippie_hunter/US_Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

So yeah, I stand by my point, even if you cut the Pentagon's budget and tax the rich more, if you expand upon our current welfare system, it will still be fiscally unstable.
Looks like the EU is moving towards greater integration (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/eu-treaty-idUSL6E7ND12Z20111213) for all but Britain and greater centralized control over national budgets. I imagine this will lead to more of what we've already seen in Greece and Italy - an unelected group of bankers overruling the will of the people in sovereign nations.If the other nations avoid the blunders that Greece and Italy did, hopefully such a situation will not occur.

[8wid]

Eurozone solution is "beyond reach", says credit agency Fitch (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16230926)

[hippie_hunter]

- Ireland is hinting that it might need to go through a referendum to enact the recent agreement between fiscal unity within the Eurozone. Wanna bet on how well that will go?

- Hungary, Sweden, and the Czech Republic have joined the UK in refusing to go along with the new fiscal unity agreement. Their reasoning is that such rules should only apply to Euro members.

- Protests have organized in Poland in opposition to the new agreement.

- The European Union and IMF have broken off talks with Hungary in regards to a bailout.

- Czech Republic finance officials have recommended that the nation NOT join the Euro.

[chamber-music]

Germany and France especially have been dying to make the Irish raise their corparation tax which played a large part in Irelands economic boom over the past decade. If Ireland goes with the new treaty I'm sure that will be top of the list of things sarkozy wants them to change.

[hippie_hunter]

Moody's has downgraded Belgium two notches to Aa3.

[hippie_hunter]

S&P has downgraded France and Austria's debt to AA+, ending their AAA status. Italy has been downgraded two notches to BBB+, just barely above junk status. Portugal has been downgraded to two notches into junk status. Spain and Cyprus has been downgraded two notches. Malta, Slovakia, and Slovenia have been downgraded one notch. All Eurozone nations except for Germany have been put on notice that further downgrades could happen in the near future.

Talks between the Greek government and the private sector have completely broken down. If talks do not resume or produce a positive outcome, Greece will go bankrupt sometime in March.

The Euro has dropped to a 17 month low as a result in the markets today.

[Kelly]

That is very tough for France, they own their own debt.......this is not good.


The UK is probably laughing at the Euro right now, and Ireland is probably thinking....why, why, why didn't we listen to the British.

[Dr. Evil]

The UK has a new issue to deal with besides the Euro:

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-faces-eu-negotiation-scotland-breaks-away-033245767.html

[hippie_hunter]

Polling in the UK shows some interesting results over Scotland:

- 43% of English voters approve of Scottish independence as opposed to 32% disapproving.

- 40% of Scottish voters approve of Scottish independence with 43% disapproving.

[Marvolo]

The UK has a new issue to deal with besides the Euro:

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-faces-eu-negotiation-scotland-breaks-away-033245767.html

I feel dumb asking this, but what exactly does this mean?

I thought Scotland was already independent and free? And Ireland is a part of the European Union? I wasn't aware of that.

I've been so focused on American politics and the upcoming election I'm afraid I've let my knowledge of world politics slip into the gutter.

[the_ultimate_evil]

Polling in the UK shows some interesting results over Scotland:

- 43% of English voters approve of Scottish independence as opposed to 32% disapproving.

- 40% of Scottish voters approve of Scottish independence with 43% disapproving.

see i'm torn on the who scottish independence thing, if it goes through, you can guarantee people/idiots will start campaigning for it here again in N.ireland

and we don't debate we just blow each other the **** up, and thats all we need

[Dr. Evil]

I feel dumb asking this, but what exactly does this mean?

I thought Scotland was already independent and free? And Ireland is a part of the European Union? I wasn't aware of that.

I've been so focused on American politics and the upcoming election I'm afraid I've let my knowledge of world politics slip into the gutter.

Scotland has been a part of the United Kingdom for 300 years.

Scottish independence though could cause a major ripple affect all throughout the European continent.

[Kelly]

Polling in the UK shows some interesting results over Scotland:

- 43% of English voters approve of Scottish independence as opposed to 32% disapproving.

- 40% of Scottish voters approve of Scottish independence with 43% disapproving.

Right now, that would be very dumb on Scotland's part.....very dumb.

[Marvolo]

Scotland has been a part of the United Kingdom for 300 years.

Scottish independence though could cause a major ripple affect all throughout the European continent.

Oh I thought they were free the moment Mel Gibson declared "FREEEEEDOOOOOMMMMM!!!"

LOL, in all seriousness thanks for the info.

[hippie_hunter]

S&P has downgraded the European Financial Stability Fund from AAA to AA+. The EFSF is Europe's bailout fund.

[hippie_hunter]

The NYT is reporting that leaders from the EU, ECB, and IMF are starting to come to the conclusion that Greece does not have the will or ability to implement the necessary reforms it promised in exchange for aid. They are preparing to withhold aid and focus more on attempting to mitigate the effects of an uncontrolled default as opposed to actually helping Greece. They believe that the situation has become untenable.

[Kahran Ramsus]

The NYT is reporting that leaders from the EU, ECB, and IMF are starting to come to the conclusion that Greece does not have the will or ability to implement the necessary reforms it promised in exchange for aid. They are preparing to withhold aid and focus more on attempting to mitigate the effects of an uncontrolled default as opposed to actually helping Greece.

Starting? You mean it wasn't already obvious?

[hippie_hunter]

Starting? You mean it wasn't already obvious?

Yeah it was obvious, but they just didn't want to give up. It would look really bad if they had to kick Greece out of the Euro.

[Marvolo]

So is Greece getting the boot now?

[hippie_hunter]

So is Greece getting the boot now?

If Greece defaults in March, depending if they cannot reach an agreement with the lenders and if the EU has decided to give up on them, then yes they will get the boot. The EU has said that Greece will be booted out if they default.

[chamber-music]

If Scotland do go independent they are going to keep the British sterling apparently.
see i'm torn on the who scottish independence thing, if it goes through, you can guarantee people/idiots will start campaigning for it here again in N.ireland

and we don't debate we just blow each other the **** up, and thats all we need
I think people are afraid that if they have the referendum in Northern Ireland and republicans don't win that they will lose faith in the peace process and things will go back to how they were before.

[Midnyte_Sun]

EU report calls for action against Israeli settlements

The European Commission is being urged to consider drafting legislation to ensure financial transactions by EU member states do not support Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. The proposal is made in a confidential report by top EU diplomats in the area. The report says "the systematic increase in settlement activity" undermines a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The EU document argues that Israel is "actively perpetuating its annexation" of Arab East Jerusalem, which it captured in 1967, by "systematically undermining the Palestinian presence in the city".

It outlines the problems caused by "the continued expansion of settlements, restrictive zoning and planning, ongoing demolitions and evictions, an inequitable education policy, difficult access to health care, water, the inadequate provision of resources and investment and the precarious residency issue".

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16612274

[Dr. Evil]

Croatia to vote on referendum of EU Membership:

http://news.yahoo.com/croats-vote-eu-membership-referendum-073819683.html

[hippie_hunter]

Croatia has voted yes to join the European Union.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Despite all the EU's bailout attempts, the question was never if Greece would default, but when.

[Dr. Evil]

Croatia has voted yes to join the European Union.

That may or may not be a bad thing for Croatia, depending upon their economy.

[hippie_hunter]

That may or may not be a bad thing for Croatia, depending upon their economy.
They'll be fine if they don't join the Euro. While they may be legally required, it's not like the EU does anything to enforce it. Sweden and the Czech Republic are getting away with it and it looks like Poland is rather lukewarm to joining the Euro with most of the population opposed to joining it and the government adopting the position that they will join it once the crisis is solved and if it is beneficial to Poland.

[hippie_hunter]

S&P and PIMCO are coming out saying that Greece will default no matter what the outcome is.

[enterthemadness]

What's the worst case? This all reminds me of Paul saying the IMF and U.N are talking about a new currency. I just know this is bad.

[Dr. Evil]

Can someone explain to me the clear structure of the EU? There seems to me to be two in charge of the EU: The President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. Who's the main guy in charge? And why have the powers not been consolidated?

[Destructus86]

wow...those Palestinian's sure do whine a lot.

[04nbod]

That is very tough for France, they own their own debt.......this is not good.


The UK is probably laughing at the Euro right now, and Ireland is probably thinking....why, why, why didn't we listen to the British.

Ireland are stubborn. They will pretty much do the opposite of everything Westminster advises on principle and then we have to bail them out. Everything we saved through austerity in 2010 went to Ireland's bailout. Just like:

Polling in the UK shows some interesting results over Scotland:

- 43% of English voters approve of Scottish independence as opposed to 32% disapproving.

- 40% of Scottish voters approve of Scottish independence with 43% disapproving.

Scotland! Its a side show to detract from the real problems in Scotland. We are predicted to be coming out of the downturn around the time Salmond wants his referendum presumably so he can take credit for it. The share of the national debt alone on Scotland would be crippling. Remember, in the UK most people live in England hence England shoulders most of the debt. When the Royal Bank of Scotland went bust it was English money that propped it up.

If Scotland do go independent they are going to keep the British sterling apparently.

I think people are afraid that if they have the referendum in Northern Ireland and republicans don't win that they will lose faith in the peace process and things will go back to how they were before.

Salmond also wants the Queen as head of state! I don't even really think he wants independance, its all just national pride. He brought out his statement on the criteria and the question of the referendum to great fanfare on the anniversary of the birth of Robert Burns. He's trying to summon some sort of scottish patriotism beyond realism.

honestly i would just love the uk to tell europe to stick it up they're collective arse, but this si such a double edge sword we agree and basically give up a lot of our own free will and civil liberties, tell them no and we lose most if not all trade partners. its extremely shaky ground


though i do find it funny that germany will have the most power, a lot of world war jokes could be made there

But then how would we know what shape of parsnips to buy!

Seriously, tonnes of food is wasted every year because European law says they can't be misshapen which in turn drives up prices.

As for World War jokes, well I do love that Britain is still the little island who says no and knocks sense into the continent.

[chamber-music]

Can someone explain to me the clear structure of the EU? There seems to me to be two in charge of the EU: The President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. Who's the main guy in charge? And why have the powers not been consolidated?

The European Commision is the executive body of the European Union. Its responsible for the day to day running of the EU.

The European President is supposed to drive the direction of the Union. To be honest the European President role wasn't even needed and the two current holders of the position kind oof clash.

Its another one of the reasons the European Union often messes up because its overly bureaucratic.

[hippie_hunter]

Fitch has downgraded Spain two notches from A+ to A-, Italy two notches from AA- to A, Slovenia two notches from AA- to A, Belgium one notch from AA+ to AA, and Cyprus one notch from BBB to BBB-. Cyprus' rating is just one notch above junk.

[enterthemadness]

I hope America does not bail out Europe...I hope Paul is wrong and the U.N and IMF have no new currency up it's sleeve.

[enterthemadness]

Hey look, a failure...

http://m.npr.org/story/137394348?url=/2011/06/28/137394348/-1-billion-that-nobody-wants

[Paradoxium]

The ESEE reports Greece will be in "Condition Of Absolute Poverty".

I have next to no sympathy. They voted themselves into this poverty. It's hard to believe the blew their wads on the Olympics years ago.

[Marvolo]

The ESEE reports Greece will be in "Condition Of Absolute Poverty".

I have next to no sympathy. They voted themselves into this poverty. It's hard to believe the blew their wads on the Olympics years ago.

Have sympathy for the children.

[Axl Van Sixx]

One-third of Greeks support radical change via revolution (http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/163-resisting-austerity/15552-one-third-of-greeks-support-radical-change-via-revolution)

Data produced by Greek survey organization Public Issue (http://www.publicissue.gr/en/1574/debt-afieroma/) shows that in 2011 one third of the population agreed that "Our society must change radically through revolution."Speaking of which...

Pre-revolutionary situation in Greece

(http://www.marxist.com/prerevolutionary-situation-in-greece.htm)It is impossible to cure cancer with an aspirin. What is necessary is a genuine Left government – a workers’ government that is prepared to expropriate the bankers and big capitalists – both Greek and foreign – and introduce a nationalised planned economy, under the democratic control and administration of the working class.

In order to free the Greek economy from the stranglehold of foreign Capital, all debts must be repudiated and there should be a state monopoly of foreign trade. Drastic revolutionary measures should be taken against speculators and people who send their wealth abroad.

These are the prior conditions, without which no solution is possible. However, even these steps will not be enough. Under modern conditions, no country can save itself on purely national lines. Socialism in one country is a reactionary utopia, as the experience of the USSR and China clearly show. A socialist Greece should make an appeal to the workers of Europe to follow its example: throw off the yoke of Capital and unite in a European Socialist Federation, built on the solid foundations of equality and solidarity.

The only thing that stands between the working class and power is the lack of leadership. The polls indicate that the Left parties (Synaspismos, KKE and the Democratic Left) have over 40%. This shows that the working class is looking to the Left to solve its problems. But sectarian tactics prevents them from uniting for action. The KKE refuses to engage with other Left parties. They even called a separate demonstration on Sunday.

That is a fatal mistake. The working class demands united action against the capitalist class and a genuine socialist policy! What is required is the application of the Leninist policy of the United Front. Such a policy and programme would be sufficient to sweep the bourgeois parties into the dustbin of history where they belong.
(http://www.marxist.com/prerevolutionary-situation-in-greece.htm)

[hippie_hunter]

No surprise there considering how bad their government has botched up and how the Troika is treating Greece.

[Paradoxium]

Good luck with this worker type of government. After decades of cushy service and government jobs... With the type of mentalities they have developed. Wonder how many of them have any farming skills or the humility to do the tough and dirty work. It's so much easier to destroy to create.

[Dr. Evil]

Would things be this bad if Greece had still been a monarchy?

[hippie_hunter]

Yes because European monarchs have no true power. They only serve as ceremonial heads of state. The policies set forth that caused the mess would have still happened.

[Paradoxium]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/negative-salaries-negative-bailout-and-now-negative-gold-greece-just-became-banksters-paradise

- They are now seizing gold from Greek banks
- People are now being forced to pay back their salaries. Retroactive salary cuts
While Iceland is now known as the country that is the closest earthly approximation to banker hell, it is safe to say that Greece is the terrestrial equivalent of banker heaven. Because as explained earlier today, the country's population is about to get a worse deal than your average run of the mill slave - they may get whipped, but at least never have to pay for the privilege, unlike the Greeks. Hence negative salaries.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Good luck with this worker type of government. After decades of cushy service and government jobs... With the type of mentalities they have developed. Wonder how many of them have any farming skills or the humility to do the tough and dirty work. It's so much easier to destroy to create.

:facepalm:

What an arrogant, uninformed comment. You're right, there are no farmers or blue collar workers in all of Greece. :whatever:

Name me one thing these parasitical EU bankers have ever created, other than vast profits for themselves. They're the ones who are destroying the lives of millions of Greek workers and their families - the people who actually worked hard and played by the rules.

[hippie_hunter]

You can't just blame the EU bankers though. The Greek government got Greece into this mess. And it really is a damn shame because it's exactly as you say, these people worked hard and played by the rules.

[Paradoxium]

:facepalm:

What an arrogant, uninformed comment. You're right, there are no farmers or blue collar workers in all of Greece. :whatever:

Name me one thing these parasitical EU bankers have ever created, other than vast profits for themselves. They're the ones who are destroying the lives of millions of Greek workers and their families - the people who actually worked hard and played by the rules.You're putting words in my mouth. If I liked the EU bankers or were backing them, why in bloody hell would I put up an anti-EU banking article like that. Hell why would I want to short the market on this alone. You implying I would support their bailouts is insulting.

If Greece was serious about reality, why haven't they defaulted and given the bankers the middle finger like Iceland?

More than half of their jobs are government jobs. A good chunk of these are "services". Blue collar does not make up the majority of their job market.

[Axl Van Sixx]

You're putting words in my mouth. If I liked the EU bankers or were backing them, why in bloody hell would I put up an anti-EU banking article like that. Hell why would I want to short the market on this alone. You implying I would support their bailouts is insulting.

I was reacting to the way you characterized the Greek workers - all those talking points about "lazy", spoiled public sector workers and the like.

It was mostly the comment you made about them that "it's so much easier to destroy than to create" that set me off. What have the workers destroyed? I drew a comparison with the bankers because they're the ones who are destroying millions of peoples' lives to maintain their profit margins.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your own views.

If Greece was serious about reality, why haven't they defaulted and given the bankers the middle finger like Iceland?

Possibly because unlike Iceland, Greece is part of the Eurozone?

More than half of their jobs are government jobs. A good chunk of these are "services". Blue collar does not make up the majority of their job market.

It doesn't have to. You just made this big generalization, basically "those lazy Greek workers probably don't know what it's like to do real dirty work." Blue collar workers don't have to be in the majority to prove that point wrong.

Besides, anybody who sells their labour-power for a wage is working class, and in that regard, it doesn't matter if you're blue collar, white collar, pink collar, or working in the tertiary sector.

[Paradoxium]

What up with your dissect-a-quoting. Try pulling that on me again and I will make it a big pain in the ass for you. It would not be my first time.

So what if they are part of the Eurozone? The rest of the Eurozone can go to hell, they took risk and didn't do their due diligence by letting failures like Greece in. In business, it's called LOSS and BANKRUPTCY. You know taking responsibility.

And I am not backing down on the lame, overpaid and inefficient government jobs making up the majority. Hard to tax when those jobs depends on tax revenues. They do not generate a surplus of capital value to feed the monster. You can try to spin it all you want, but they are parasites by virtue of the fiscal situation.

I have no sympathy. They can keep destroying themselves. Not only do they spend like crazy, they make it a living hell for small honest businesses to start up. As e-commerce continues to gain ground apace abroad, and even Greeks seem to be warming to the idea of Internet shopping, opening an online store based in Greece is no job for the fainthearted.

“An online store is more complicated than a regular store basically because of the way payments are carried out,” explained Fotis Antonopoulos, one of the co-founders of www.oliveshop.com, which sells olive oil-based products such as cosmetics, mostly to foreign markets.

“Most stores begin operating after receiving only the approval regarding their brand name, as the bureaucracy involved takes such a long time to complete that it is simply impossible to keep up with the operational costs, such as paying rent on obligatory headquarters, without making any sales,” said Antonopoulos.

Antonopoulos and his partners spent hours collecting papers from tax offices, the Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the municipal service where the company is based, the health inspector’s office, the fire department and banks. At the health department, they were told that all the shareholders of the company would have to provide chest X-rays, and, in the most surreal demand of all, stool samples.

Once they climbed the crazy mountain of Greek bureaucracy and reached the summit, they faced the quagmire of the bank, where the issue of how to confirm the credit card details of customers ended in the bank demanding that the entire website be in Greek only, including the names of the products.Managed economy wet dream by bureaucrats (http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite2_1_21/02/2012_429208). Yes because bureaucrats of the status quo totally know how to manage the economy with infinite information constantly streaming, evolving and changing. This is the superior economy in practice. If only Obama could can make every business owner take chest x-ray and **** samples.

[Axl Van Sixx]

What up with your dissect-a-quoting. Try pulling that on me again and I will make it a big pain in the ass for you. It would not be my first time.

I'm trembling. :funny:

So what if they are part of the Eurozone? The rest of the Eurozone can go to hell, they took risk and didn't do their due diligence by letting failures like Greece in. In business, it's called LOSS and BANKRUPTCY. You know taking responsibility.

And I am not backing down on the lame, overpaid and inefficient government jobs making up the majority. Hard to tax when those jobs depends on tax revenues. They do not generate a surplus of capital value to feed the monster. You can try to spin it all you want, but they are parasites by virtue of the fiscal situation.

I have no sympathy. They can keep destroying themselves. Not only do they spend like crazy, they make it a living hell for small honest businesses to start up. Managed economy wet dream by bureaucrats (http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite2_1_21/02/2012_429208). Yes because bureaucrats of the status quo totally know how to manage the economy with infinite information constantly streaming, evolving and changing. This is the superior economy in practice. If only Obama could can make every business owner take chest x-ray and **** samples.

Bureaucracies are a drag on any economy - and that goes for whether it's a government bureaucracy or a corporate bureaucracy.

The only way to avoid that in the long term is for workers on the ground to run the enterprises democratically, with anybody who fills a higher position being elected and subject to recall at any time.

[Paradoxium]

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

One way to trip to Innovation hell.

[Axl Van Sixx]

So has anybody heard about the Greek health workers in Kilkis (http://www.marxist.com/kilkis-hospital-workers-control.htm) who took over control of their hospital and put it under workers' management?

From the statement issued by the workers' general assembly:

The workers of the Γ.Ν. (General Hospital) of Kilkis: doctors, nursing and the rest of the staff that participated in the General Assembly concluded that:

1. We recognize that the current and enduring problems of Ε.Σ.Υ (the national health system) and related organizations cannot be solved with specific and isolated demands or demands serving our special interests, since these problems are a product of a more general anti-popular governmental policy and of the bold global neoliberalism.

[...]

3. For this reason, we place our special interests inside a general framework of political and economic demands that are posed by a huge portion of the Greek people that today is under the most brutal capitalist attack; demands that in order to be fruitful must be promoted until the end in cooperation with the middle and lower classes of our society.

4. The only way to achieve this is to question, in action, not only its political legitimacy, but also the legality of the arbitrary authoritarian and anti-popular power and hierarchy which is moving towards totalitarianism with accelerating pace.

5. The workers at the General Hospital of Kilkis answer to this totalitarianism with democracy. We occupy the public hospital and put it under our direct and absolute control. The Γ.N. of Kilkis, will henceforth be self-governed and the only legitimate means of administrative decision making will be the General Assembly of its workers.

6. The government is not released of its economic obligations of staffing and supplying the hospital, but if they continue to ignore these obligations, we will be forced to inform the public of this and ask the local government but most importantly the society to support us in any way possible for: (a) the survival of our hospital (b) the overall support of the right for public and free healthcare (c) the overthrow, through a common popular struggle, of the current government and any other neoliberal policy, no matter where it comes from (d) a deep and substantial democratization, that is, one that will have society, rather than a third party, responsible for making decisions for its own future.

7. The labour union of the Γ.N. of Kilkis, will begin, from 6 February, the retention of work, serving only emergency incidents in our hospital until the complete payment for the hours worked, and the rise of our income to the levels it was before the arrival of the troika (EU-ECB-IMF). Meanwhile, knowing full well what our social mission and moral obligations are, we will protect the health of the citizens that come to the hospital by providing free healthcare to those in need, accommodating and calling the government to finally accept its responsibilities, overcoming even in the last minute its immoderate social ruthlessness.

8. We decide that a new general assembly will take place, on Monday 13 February in the assembly hall of the new building of the hospital at 11 am, in order to decide the procedures that are needed to efficiently implement the occupation of the administrative services and to successfully realise the self-governance of the hospital, which will start from that day. The general assemblies will take place daily and will be the paramount instrument for decision making regarding the employees and the operation of the hospital.

We ask for the solidarity of the people and workers from all fields, the collaboration of all workers' unions and progressive organizations, as well as the support from any media organization that chooses to tell the truth. We are determined to continue until the traitors that sell out our country and our people leave. It's either them or us!

The above decisions will be made public through a news conference to which all the Mass Media (local and national) will be invited on Wednesday 15/2/2012 at 12.30. Our daily assemblies begin on 13 February. We will inform the citizens about every important event taking place in our hospital by means of news releases and conferences. Furthermore, we will use any means available to publicise these events in order to make this mobilization successful.

We call

a) our fellow citizens to show solidarity to our effort,

b) every unfairly treated citizen of our country in contestation and opposition, with actions, against his'/her's oppressors,

c) our fellow workers from other hospitals to make similar decisions,

d) the employees in other fields of the public and private sector and the participants in labour and progressive organizations to act likewise, in order to help our mobilization take the form of a universal labour and popular resistance and uprising, until our final victory against the economic and political elite that today oppresses our country and the whole world.

Emphasis mine.

This is the way forward - not just in Greece, but for workers all over the world facing austerity. Labor needs to occupy the workplace.

[enterthemadness]

Sad...


http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/04/11017529-all-hope-annihilated-retiree-kills-himself-outside-greek-parliament


1 out of 5 Greeks jobless? Yikes. :csad: I knew it was bad, but no that mad. That is 20% unemployment. Straight up. That DOESN'T include people that are underemployed aka part-timers.

[demitri_vampiro]

One-third of Greeks support radical change via revolution (http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/163-resisting-austerity/15552-one-third-of-greeks-support-radical-change-via-revolution)

Speaking of which...

Pre-revolutionary situation in Greece

(http://www.marxist.com/prerevolutionary-situation-in-greece.htm)
(http://www.marxist.com/prerevolutionary-situation-in-greece.htm)

one can only hope that this whole situation with greece might bring up a revolution in which socialism will overcome capitalism.

[hippie_hunter]

A socialist revolution would hinder Greece further. It would be kicked out of the European Union and pretty much any outsider would want to do nothing with Greece.

[enterthemadness]

Watching the 60 minutes thing on Greece & European Union. :(

[demitri_vampiro]

A socialist revolution would hinder Greece further. It would be kicked out of the European Union and pretty much any outsider would want to do nothing with Greece.

not necessarily. because they are in the eu, they are limited in the possibilities to solve their problems. once out of eu, they can also devaluate their currency. none of the countries that entered the eu, have really benefited from it. in fact all of them went backwards.

[The Overlord]

not necessarily. because they are in the eu, they are limited in the possibilities to solve their problems. once out of eu, they can also devaluate their currency. none of the countries that entered the eu, have really benefited from it. in fact all of them went backwards.

That also means no more bailouts for them and a default on their debt. Its going to be even harder for Greek government to pay for any social programs if that happens. Greece needs the EU far more the EU needs Greece, I bet many in the EU would happy to cut Greece loose.

Greece is not in an position of strength at moment, they are not in a position to dictate terms to other EU countries who will want the money they lend to Greece back and I don't think going it alone would help them that much. If Greece doesn't think things can get worse, they are sadly mistaken. If they leave the EU, things would get worse for their economy, not better.

[demitri_vampiro]

That also means no more bailouts for them and a default on their debt. Its going to be even harder for Greek government to pay for any social programs if that happens. Greece needs the EU far more the EU needs Greece, I bet many in the EU would happy to cut Greece loose.

Greece is not in an position of strength at moment, they are not in a position to dictate terms to other EU countries who will want the money they lend to Greece back and I don't think going it alone would help them that much. If Greece doesn't think things can get worse, they are sadly mistaken. If they leave the EU, things would get worse for their economy, not better.

actually it is the other way around. if eu doesnt need greece that much, why spend all that money to save it. it maybe a loan, but most of that money will not be made back. eu needs greece to sustain its own ˝life˝. should greece leave the eu, then the eu will gradually start to fall apart.
the eu polititians know that as well. all these negotiations between greece and eu about bailout and always just barely making the deadline is just an act so the eu countries can gain support by their citizens for the bailout by acting as if they are tough and making the greek government work hard to get the money.

[hippie_hunter]

not necessarily. because they are in the eu, they are limited in the possibilities to solve their problems. once out of eu, they can also devaluate their currency. none of the countries that entered the eu, have really benefited from it. in fact all of them went backwards.

Falling under socialist revolution would just isolate Greece from the international community. The only way a socialist revolution would work is if it happens all at once and that just will not happen.

[hippie_hunter]

- Polls are showing Greek's political future to succumb to complete chaos with the Socialists and New Democracy losing seats to extreme right and extreme left parties. New Democracy currently holds a slim lead. Which could lead to more Eurozone chaos.

- Francois Hollande has won the first round of elections in France. He will go into a runoff election against President Nicolas Sarkozy. A Hollande victory, the most likely outcome, is seen as a potential destabilizing factor in the Eurozone.

Fun Fact: Hollande wants to impose a 75% tax rate on those who make more than 1,000,000 Euros a year.

- The government in the Netherlands has collapsed.

-

[Axl Van Sixx]

one can only hope that this whole situation with greece might bring up a revolution in which socialism will overcome capitalism.

I like the cut of your jib. :yay:

Unfortunately, even though the Greek Communist Party (KKE) is surging in the polls, they're following a very sectarian path. Basically, they want all the protests to be under their own umbrella. You can see that the old Stalinist leaders are still ****ing things up as always.

The KKE and the Greek Revolution (http://www.marxist.com/the-kke-and-the-greek-revolution.htm)

[enterthemadness]

- Polls are showing Greek's political future to succumb to complete chaos with the Socialists and New Democracy losing seats to extreme right and extreme left parties. New Democracy currently holds a slim lead. Which could lead to more Eurozone chaos.

- Francois Hollande has won the first round of elections in France. He will go into a runoff election against President Nicolas Sarkozy. A Hollande victory, the most likely outcome, is seen as a potential destabilizing factor in the Eurozone.

Fun Fact: Hollande wants to impose a 75% tax rate on those who make more than 1,000,000 Euros a year.

- The government in the Netherlands has collapsed.

-


:wow::wow::wow: WOW.

[hippie_hunter]

I like the cut of your jib. :yay:

Unfortunately, even though the Greek Communist Party (KKE) is surging in the polls, they're following a very sectarian path. Basically, they want all the protests to be under their own umbrella. You can see that the old Stalinist leaders are still ****ing things up as always.

The KKE and the Greek Revolution (http://www.marxist.com/the-kke-and-the-greek-revolution.htm)

What scares me the most about the Greek elections is that not only is the extreme left surging in the polls, but the extreme right is climbing up as well. Neo-Nazis have 5% of the vote. Who the **** would even consider those people? The Independent Greeks are polling just as well as the Communists, and who knows how far they will go.

This clash of extremes is not going to produce anything productive.

[Axl Van Sixx]

What scares me the most about the Greek elections is that not only is the extreme left surging in the polls, but the extreme right is climbing up as well. Neo-Nazis have 5% of the vote. Who the **** would even consider those people? The Independent Greeks are polling just as well as the Communists, and who knows how far they will go.

This clash of extremes is not going to produce anything productive.

I was really disappointed to see that the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen of the National Front came third in the first run of the French presidential elections. I had heard a lot of hype around Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the Left Front (a union of the French Communist Party and other left parties) making some headway, but in the end he got a measly 11% to Le Pen's 18%. Part of that, I think, was in reaction to the recent shooting at the Jewish school in Toulouse.

Still, you shouldn't lump together the far right and the radical left as equal "extremes". That's a rhetorical trick used to bolster liberal, i.e. bourgeois democracy as the only "reasonable" form of government, despite the fact that it only works for a small minority.

[hippie_hunter]

Communists and neo-Nazis are extremes. They just represent the extreme ends of the opposite spectrum.

[Handsome Rob]

Wealthy French Eye Move Across the Channel

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/278412e6-9538-11e1-8faf-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fw orld_uk%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz1tzzzXPq7

Wealthy French people are looking to London as a refuge from fresh taxes on high earners pledged by candidates in the country’s presidential elections. The “soak the rich” rhetoric that has punctuated the presidential campaign has prompted a sharp rise in the numbers weighing a move across the Channel, according to London-based wealth managers, lawyers and property agents specialising in French clients.Well, this is no surprise. Part of me hopes Hollande wins and implements his 75% rate. Then, the wealth of France will hollow out as the wealthy move their earnings elsewhere, government will be underfunded, and maybe--just maybe--the French people will learn that Churchill was right when he said, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Other countries should lure the wealthy French by stressing their lower tax rates on income. Tennessee has no state income tax, and that's a definite factor in my living here. Tax policy matters.

[chamber-music]

They will fit right in in London with all the rich Russians, Middle Eastern and Chinese folks I guess. Tories will protect them.

[hippie_hunter]

I really hope that Hollande loses. Sarkozy isn't that good of a President to begin with, but unless Hollande backs down on his most outrageous promises, he's going to destroy France.

[Dr. Evil]

I really hope that Hollande loses. Sarkozy isn't that good of a President to begin with, but unless Hollande backs down on his most outrageous promises, he's going to destroy France.

Get ready to see France destroyed:

http://news.yahoo.com/hollande-wins-french-election-pollster-projections-180704535.html

[chamber-music]

I wouldn't worry too much. Most people think Francois Hollande isn't going to be able to do half the stuff he campainged about like most politicans.

I'm worried about those Neo-Nazis Golden Dawn in Greece jumping from 0.3% to possibly 8%. The rise of those extreamists taking advantage of peoples dissatisfaction with the traditional parties is disturbing.

Especially when their supporters say stuff like this

"We believe in our race, we believe in our nation's power,".

"These immigrants have not been checked for diseases. If a Greek person feels threatened by an immigrant, I justify someone trying to give them justice.

"I don't know why I should care about violence against immigrants."

[Axl Van Sixx]

Don't let the "Socialist" moniker of Hollande's party fool you - this guy is a careerist and extreme "moderate" who, like all reformist politicians, wants to be seen as a responsible caretaker of capitalism.

The only thing that will prevent him from pushing austerity is if a mass movement in France pushes him to the left. We already saw that during the election; he had to propose measures like the 75% tax rate on the wealthy to protect his left flank from Melenchon and the Left Front.

[hippie_hunter]

Don't let the "Socialist" moniker of Hollande's party fool you - this guy is a careerist and extreme "moderate" who, like all reformist politicians, wants to be seen as a responsible caretaker of capitalism.

The only thing that will prevent him from pushing austerity is if a mass movement in France pushes him to the left. We already saw that during the election; he had to propose measures like the 75% tax rate on the wealthy to protect his left flank from Melenchon and the Left Front.

The French Socialist Party are not true Socialists the way Marx envisioned, but more along the lines of a social democracy party. But with Hollande's platform, if he goes through with it, is going to destroy France.

[chamber-music]

They don't sound all that different from the Labour Party in the UK who are also Socialists but not really socialists. Labour were more pro-big business than the conservative party when they were in power.

[hippie_hunter]

Well back in the late 1800's/early 1900's the socialist movement pretty much split into the hardcore communists (Lenin) and those who adapted their platforms to appeal to the masses and became social democratic parties (English Labour, German Social Democrats, French Socialists, etc.).

[hippie_hunter]

Results of the Greek elections:

New Democracy - 18.9%, 108 seats
Coalition of the Radical Left - 16.8%, 52 seats
Panhellenic Socialist Movement - 13.2%, 41 seats
Independent Greeks - 10.6%, 33 seats
Communist Party - 8.5%, 26 seats
Golden Dawn - 7%, 21 seats

[8wid]

I have a professor friend who recently went to Italy in December and was concerned from what she saw that Italy, Spain, and Greece really were on the brink of economic collapse. Not exactly good news despite whoever gets elected.

Once Greece or one of the others collapses, the stagflation is going to hit across the Globe, especially Europe and the United States. It may be bad enough with the already other weak factors to cause a global depression instead of simply a double dip recession that is now being officially acknowledged in Britain and other nations.

[hippie_hunter]

I think that the Eurozone is going to kick Greece out before such a thing occurs. The only way Greece can recover is if they drop the Euro and in the event that Greece does default, Greece getting kicked out beforehand will control the impact it has on the global economy.

[Mikelus]

The French Socialist Party are not true Socialists the way Marx envisioned, but more along the lines of a social democracy party. But with Hollande's platform, if he goes through with it, is going to destroy France.

He knows that, in the 80's François Mitterrand started with very leftist measures but had to backtrack to save France's economy. That platform was to get votes from the radical left. Anyway, France is going to be in trouble, the country lacks labor flexibility and taxes are just way too high to stay competitive.

[Axl Van Sixx]

The French Socialist Party are not true Socialists the way Marx envisioned, but more along the lines of a social democracy party. But with Hollande's platform, if he goes through with it, is going to destroy France.

It's not even really up to Hollande; the real power centre in Europe is in Brussels and the bankers still want austerity. So it's likely that Hollande will do the bare minimum that he needs to save face among the people who voted for them, but otherwise he'll do whatever the bankers want (surprise!).

Regarding Greece, here's hoping that SYRIZA can put together an anti-austerity coalition government. If they could get the KKE on their side that might be enough, but unfortunately that party's leaders have been following a very sectarian path.

[hippie_hunter]

It's not even really up to Hollande; the real power centre in Europe is in Brussels and the bankers still want austerity. So it's likely that Hollande will do the bare minimum that he needs to save face among the people who voted for them, but otherwise he'll do whatever the bankers want (surprise!).
Very true.

Regarding Greece, here's hoping that SYRIZA can put together an anti-austerity coalition government. If they could get the KKE on their side that might be enough, but unfortunately that party's leaders have been following a very sectarian path.
I don't see SYRIZA being able to put together a government. The only parties that are compatible with SYRIZA are PASOK, the Democratic Left, and the KKE and combined, they don't enough seats to form a government.

However, you also have to take a look at the chaos going on. PASOK refuses to form a coalition with SYRIZA because SYRIZA's platform will guarantee Greece being kicked out of the Eurozone. SYRIZA isn't going to work with Golden Dawn (no one in their right minds would). The Independent Greeks are essentially an anti-austerity New Democracy. And they couldn't form a government with New Democracy.

The most likely outcome will be new elections in June.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Let's hope, then, that the Greek left can get its act together by June.

[hippie_hunter]

With the way things are, I don't see any of the parties getting their act together.

[hippie_hunter]

SYRIZA has failed to put together a government, the baton has now been passed on for a final time to PASOK, which is expected to fail and a new set of elections are most likely going to be held.

[chamber-music]

I think that the Eurozone is going to kick Greece out before such a thing occurs. The only way Greece can recover is if they drop the Euro and in the event that Greece does default, Greece getting kicked out beforehand will control the impact it has on the global economy.

I watched Michael Portillo's Greece Euro spercial on the BBC the other night. Portillo interviewed people on both sides of the political spectrum, families, buisness men, goverment officals and they all wanted to remain in the European Union as well as keep the Euro.

[hippie_hunter]

I watched Michael Portillo's Greece Euro spercial on the BBC the other night. Portillo interviewed people on both sides of the political spectrum, families, buisness men, goverment officals and they all wanted to remain in the European Union as well as keep the Euro.

Well they can't have it both ways. If they want to remain in the Euro, then they have to continue on the trek of austerity. If they want to free themselves from it, they have no choice but to leave.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Well well well...Hollande isn't even in office yet and he's already backpedaling on his campaign promises. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! :whatever:

Triangulating France (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/10/triangulating-france/)


“France’s Socialist president-elect Francois Hollande may use a summer audit of state finances to water down his generous campaign promises rather than risk a backlash from financial markets against stubbornly high deficits and rising debt.

Advisers say he could even freeze some spending if the review turns up any nasty surprises, soothing investors who are worried he has become the figurehead for a fight against German-imposed austerity in the euro zone.” (“France’s Hollande may roll back spending promises”, Reuters)
Hollande, who narrowly defeated Nicolas Sarkozy in the general election, has promised to renegotiate the EU’s notorious “fiscal pact” and to push a “pro growth” agenda to offset the effects of austerity measures which have thrust much of the continent back into recession. He now appears to be reversing his position in an effort to placate the markets.

[...]

If Hollande is not really interested in the welfare of working people, then how did he nab the top-spot on the Socialist Party ticket?

That’s easy. It’s because the Socialist Party in France is a big sham just like the Democratic Party in the US. Neither party represents the interests of working people. Here’s a clip from an article in the Washington Post that helps to clarify this point:
“The men and women who are elbowing for senior posts in Francois Hollande’s new French government reflect a range of political trajectories. But one thing they share is Hollande’s view of socialism as free-market social democracy — a pragmatic ideology in which nationalizations, clenched fists and the hammer and sickle are things of the past.

As a result, analysts here say, the policies that Hollande will follow when he takes over as president on Tuesday are unlikely to disrupt Europe’s political and economic systems or upset France’s relations with the United States.” (“French cabinet hopefuls share Francois Hollande’s pragmatic view of socialism”, Washington Post)
How do you like that? No garish “hammer and sickle” for M. Hollande and his coterie of free market carpetbaggers. Oh no, just plain-old slash and burn neoliberalism wrapped up in a tidy socialist ribbon.

Can you see what’s going on here? Hollande’s not interested in change. Not really. He’s just another triangulating sock-puppet hauling water for big business. That doesn’t mean that he won’t try to persuade Germany to “lighten up” on the austerity-thing. He probably will. Not because it’ll give working people a lift, but because his fatcat bank buddies are worried about “skittish” bondholders. Those are the guys who really count, not the little people who run the machines and stock the shelves. Hollande knows that; he’s no fool. That’s why he’s never going to veer too far from the policies set by his predecessor, because any major change would piss off the plutocrats. And we can’t have that!

[hippie_hunter]

Despite the name, you really can't call the French Socialist Party to be genuinely socialist like the French Communist Party. They're more along the lines of a social democratic party, so personally, I think it's a rather unfair criticism for the Socialist Party to not be following the hammer and sickle when they've been this way for almost 100 years.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Despite the name, you really can't call the French Socialist Party to be genuinely socialist like the French Communist Party. They're more along the lines of a social democratic party, so personally, I think it's a rather unfair criticism for the Socialist Party to not be following the hammer and sickle when they've been this way for almost 100 years.

Oh, I totally agree. But there are many people who might be misled by the name "Socialist Party", so I thought it was important to clear up what they really are.

Despite the fact that the Socialist Party is reformist, not revolutionary, it does have a history in the labour movement (the French Communist Party began as an offshoot from the more radical wing of the Socialist Party). When Mitterand became president in the 80s, you actually had some worries on this side of the Atlantic that he might prove some kind of crazy leftist radical, until Mitterand illustrated that he was perfectly happy with business as usual.

So yes, the Socialist Party is a very mainstream party that will ultimately do whatever the "markets" demand of it. But French voters placed their hopes in Hollande because they believed that he represented an alternative to austerity. Once he inevitably betrays them, hopefully the conclusions they'll draw will lead to a surge in support for Jean-Luc Melanchon and the Left Front.

[hippie_hunter]

Mitterand had no choice but to go with business as usual. His economic policies at the start of his term utterly destroyed France.

[hippie_hunter]

PASOK has failed to form a government. There will be a final attempt led by the President of Greece to form a government in order to avoid another set of elections in June.

[hippie_hunter]

Negotiations to form a government have failed in Greece with new elections set for either June 10 or June 17. SYRIZA is currently leading the polls.

[Axl Van Sixx]

It's gonna be a crazy month.

[hippie_hunter]

It's gonna be a crazy month.
Yeah it is. Who the hell even knows what's going to happen. On one hand, I would not be surprised at all if voters who previously supported PASOK and the Democratic Left go to SYRIZA because they have been really effective in being the spokesgroup to go against the bailout. On top of that, I can see former Independent Greek and New Democracy voters going to Golden Dawn, which should make it easy for SYRIZA to become the largest party.

But on the other hand, SYRIZA's leader has been insanely irresponsible throughout this process and I wouldn't be surprised if this blew up in his face.

[8wid]

What will happen if Greece leaves the eurozone? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18067764)

There is going to be global stagflation and a dump at the world's stock markets if Greece leaves the Euro. $5 gasoline the United States, higher food prices, greater pressure on other nations near default such as Spain and Italy. The Arab Spring probably will intensify with the rise in food prices as will tensions in Africa especially between the Sudans. Nothing pretty will come from it and I feel that will cause at least a crisis the size of the one in 2008 all over again if not a Great Depression.

[Monsieur Xavier]

But French voters placed their hopes in Hollande because they believed that he represented an alternative to austerity. Once he inevitably betrays them, hopefully the conclusions they'll draw will lead to a surge in support for Jean-Luc Melanchon and the Left Front.

Not really. We voted mainly for Hollande because we were fed up with Sarkozy and his minions.
JL Melanchon and the left front score at the election were very very low, if there is any surge somewhere it will be with the FN ( National Front ). IMO.

[hippie_hunter]

Not really. We voted mainly for Hollande because we were fed up with Sarkozy and his minions.
JL Melanchon and the left front score at the election were very very low, if there is any surge somewhere it will be with the FN ( National Front ). IMO.

That's the impression I got. I think that Sarkozy would have lost even without the Eurozone Crisis and the Age of Austerity.

[Paradoxium]

Make Layoffs So Expensive For Companies That It's Not Worth It
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE8560BH20120607?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
France's new Socialist government is planning to ramp up the cost of laying off workers for companies in the coming months, its labour minister said on Thursday after data showed the jobless rate hit the highest level this century at 10 percent.

"The main idea is to make layoffs so expensive for companies that it's not worth it," Sapin said in an interview with France Info radio.

"It's not a question of sanctions, but workers have to have compensation at the right level," he said.

Industry Minister Arnaud Montebourg is also planning legislation that would force companies to sell plants they want to get rid of at market prices to avoid closures and job losses.
A blogger sums it up (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.ca/2012/06/hollande-about-to-wreck-france-with.html)

1. Mass layoffs will occur before the law passes.
2. Companies will move any jobs they can overseas.
3. Ongoing, if it's difficult to fire people, companies will not hire them in the first place.
4. Corporate profits will collapse along with the stock market should the need to fire people arise.



Seriously, have these imbeciles ever run a god damn business before. I am not asking for a big corporate conglomerate. Just a small business. **** me, this is not even funny amusing anymore.

[Webfoot Hero]

Make Layoffs So Expensive For Companies That It's Not Worth It
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE8560BH20120607?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

A blogger sums it up (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.ca/2012/06/hollande-about-to-wreck-france-with.html)



Seriously, have these imbeciles ever run a god damn business before. I am not asking for a big corporate conglomerate. Just a small business. **** me, this is not even funny amusing anymore.
It's stupid that they think a company shouldn't be able to lay people off. Sometimes you have more people than you need to get the job done or the extra people don't warrant working there for the minute increase in profit/production if in turn they have to provide long-term benefits that eat up that profit they make. I've been laid off 2 times and both times I knew it was because the work I was doing could easily be done by others already there and I was low man on the totem pole since I was the new guy. It sucks but it's all part of running a business.

[Paradoxium]

It's like horse carriages to cars. Ice houses to refrigerators. You have new emerging industries needing to take the risk to create new opportunities. Job markets are incredibly dynamic. Adjustments need to be made macro and micro wise. Now you make firing difficult, you also punish entrepreneurs. They already take incredible risks with the markets as it is, adding more to it, won't help. This has got to be one of the most assine policy I have ever seen in a long time.

Well if they are stupid enough to go through with this, it might be an opportunity. Learn French because there will be a lot of French companies outsourcing after this.

[Kelly]

*sighs*...... Obama is going to be best friends with the new French President....they will probably have a bromance.

[Paradoxium]

Euro fears boost virtual currency Bitcoin (http://business.financialpost.com/2012/06/08/euro-fears-boost-virtual-currency-bitcoin/)

[hippie_hunter]

The results from the new Greek elections have come in:

1. New Democracy has come in first with 30.37% of the vote, an increase from 18.85% in the last set of elections. They will receive 131 seats.

2. SYRIZA has come in a solid second place with 26.16% of the vote, an increase from 16.78% in the last round. They will receive 69 seats.

3. PASOK has come in third with 12.72%, a decrease from 13.18% in the last round. they will receive 34 seats. PASOK will be New Democracy's coalition partner that will allow them to form a new government that will adhere to the terms of Greece's bailout deal.

4. Independent Greeks came in fourth with 7.45%, a decrease from 10.6%. They will receive 20 seats.

5. Golden Dawn is in fifth with 6.96% of the vote. Roughly the same amount as last time, they will receive 18 seats.

6. The Democratic Left is in sixth with 6.04% of the vote, again, roughly the same amount as last time, they will receive 16 seats.

7. The Communist Party has come in seventh with 4.45%, a decrease from 8.48% last time. They will receive 12 seats.

[Kelly]

I guess the youngsters didn't get home in time to vote....

[hippie_hunter]

I guess the youngsters didn't get home in time to vote....

While SYRIZA did an impressive job in getting former voters of PASOK, the Communists, and Democratic Left, it's pretty obvious that Alexis Tsipras rather wreckless and irresponsible campaign along with the other European powers saying that if SYRIZA won they would be kicked out of the Euro essentially boosted the support for New Democracy.

[Paradoxium]

Since Hollande's party got parliamentary majority (and by a gigantic ass margin), it's time people take advantage of the mass capital flight out of France. I wonder where the rich will flee to.

[Kelly]

Well, I know of one that fled Socialism years ago....and is now teaching in my district. But, he's far from rich....lol

I haven't spoke with him about this, but I'm sure he is none too happy.

[Dr. Evil]

Since Hollande's party got parliamentary majority (and by a gigantic ass margin), it's time people take advantage of the mass capital flight out of France. I wonder where the rich will flee to.

Monaco, Dubai, Doha, New York City would probably be the top four.

[Paradoxium]

Well, I know of one that fled Socialism years ago....and is now teaching in my district. But, he's far from rich....lol

I haven't spoke with him about this, but I'm sure he is none too happy.
The richer tranche will be the first to get out, because they have the cash. Just the nature of it. Average citizens will tag along later. Since it requires a lot of arrangements and savings.

I feel for the small and medium sized business owners in France. It's going to be hell for them. They have my sympathies.

[Paradoxium]

Monaco, Dubai, Doha, New York City would probably be the top four.Many rich Americans are now heading to Singapore and New Zealand. Chile is getting popular.

This piques my curiosity because of the language issue - French. English is the language for international business, so it makes it easier to find alternative business destinations.

[Dr. Evil]

Bumped, because Catalonia wants to secede from Spain:

http://news.yahoo.com/spain-crisis-fuels-catalan-separatist-sentiment-073933870.html;_ylt=Ag2a9on4LyRw.MyHtUeTuIVvaA8F;_ ylu=X3oDMTNlZXJtbGVwBG1pdAMEcGtnAzA2N2M5MjY1LWEyZj MtMzE2Yi1hMWY2LTViZmU0MDg4MzlhMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDbG5f RXVyb3BlX2dhbAR2ZXIDMjMzNzNkMDEtMGIyZS0xMWUyLWFmZj ctMzM0YjhkNTBiNmQ2;_ylv=3

BARCELONA, Spain (AP) — Three weeks after a massive Catalan separatist march in Barcelona — the biggest since the 1970s — the independence flags still flutter from balconies across Spain's second largest city.
Spain's crushing recession has had this divisive consequence: soaring popular sentiment in Catalonia that the affluent region would be better off as a separate nation.
On Thursday, regional lawmakers voted to hold a referendum for Catalonia's seven million citizens to decide whether they want to break away from Spain. The Spanish government says that the referendum would be unconstitutional. And it's unclear if the "Yes" vote would win — even in these restless times.
But it looks more likely than ever that Catalonia may ask to go its own way.
"I have a big Catalan flag on the balcony. I put it up a week before the demonstration on Sept. 11 and it is still hanging there," said Gemma Mondon, 46, a mother of two. "I think we would be better off if we can manage our money. I think we would do much better."
Catalonia, a northeastern region that is historically one of Spain's wealthiest and most industrialized, has always harbored a strong nationalist streak. Separatism is especially entrenched in the rural towns and villages outside its more cosmopolitan capital Barcelona, where people switch between speaking Spanish and Catalan with ease and at times without even noticing.
In the peaceful transition from the Franco dictatorship to prosperous democracy, Catalans were content just to recover the freedom to openly speak, teach and publish in their own Catalan language, a right denied under Franco for over 30 years.
But now, generations-old grievances for more self-government and recognition of their culture are rising to the surface as the economic downturn bites.
Many Catalans feel their quest for a sense for nationhood has been frustrated by the intransigence of the central government in Madrid. The most recent of these clashes came in 2010 when Spain's Constitutional Court weakened the Statute of Autonomy for Catalonia, a sweeping package of laws that devolved more power to the region and would have recognized Catalonia as a nation, albeit one within Spain.
Spain's slump, which has led to a spike in unemployment and harsh austerity cuts, has proven to be the tipping point for many Catalans who used to be against or ambivalent about seeking their own state.
Mondon, who works for a family run real estate management firm, said that just over a year ago she voted "No" in a nonbinding referendum organized by pro-independence groups. Now, she says she has changed her mind.
"I always felt Spanish and Catalan and I never had the urge to be independent. A year ago I just wanted to be left alone to speak my language and raise my children in a Catalan school," said Mondon. "My attitude was 'don't bother me,' but now that has changed."
Catalonia will go to the polls on Nov. 25, with regional president Artur Mas' center-right nationalist party Convergencia i Unio expected to increase its hold of the regional parliament. Mas has said he will hold a referendum on Catalonia's self-determination, whether the Spanish government permits it or not. The date has yet to be set.
"If the Spanish government authorizes (the referendum), more the better," said Mas. "If the Spanish government turns its back on us and doesn't authorize a referendum or another type of vote, well, we will do it anyway."
Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy insists the country's constitution doesn't allow a region to secede on its own, and experts say it would be virtually impossible for Catalan separatists to get it changed. Spain's Basque region, the other part of the country with a strong separatist movement, tried to get such a move approved in Parliament in 2005 but failed.
"It's not a scenario planned by the constitution," said Francisco Perez-Latre, a communications professor at the University of Navarra who has closely monitored the Catalan independence movement for years.
The new political uncertainty about the economically important region and major tourism destination is unsettling for investors already worried about Rajoy's ability to keep his country's shaky economy afloat, and within the euro currency club.

There are also doubts about how well-equipped Catalonia would be to go it alone.
Catalonia, sitting on its own mountain of debt, has in fact asked Spain for a €5.9 billion bailout. But many Catalans argue that the region is only heavily indebted because it has to pay more than its fair due in taxes compared to services and funding it gets in return. Spain's other better-off regions also give more than they receive. Rajoy, however, has emboldened Catalan separatists by flatly rejecting demands for more power in levying tax revenues and deciding how it is spent, privileges granted to two other Spanish regions: the Basque Country and Navarra.
Rajoy's stance has combined with Spain's gloomy prospects to push Catalans who never wanted to break away from Spain before to conclude that the country itself is a failure.
"I put the Catalan flag on my balcony for the first time. Normally, I have been very discreet with my political ideas. But I think now I have to go a step further," said architect Albert Estanyol, 48, whose mother came from southern Spain. "Before, when asked about independence, I would say 'Why?' Now, I say, 'Why not?'"
Catalonia has over 800,000 unemployed, almost 22 percent of its population. That's slightly lower than Spain's national jobless rate, but the back-to-back recessions have been particularly hard on young workers in Catalonia. Since 2007, over 100,000 Catalans under 25 have lost their jobs, and the unemployment rate for workers under 25 has skyrocketed to over 50 percent, close to the national level for the same age bracket.
"I have looked for work. Since I was 18 I have had six or seven jobs, they have all been unstable, poorly paid, like filling in for two weeks at IKEA. They have had nothing to do with what I studied," said Roger Cervino, a 23-year-old who holds a degree in history.
"The economic situation is bad and one of the solutions to ending the crisis is secession. It would be complicated, but Catalonia has the capacity to reach full employment," he said. "What stops it is Spain, and above all the Spanish government, which has been a disaster."

[Dr. Evil]

EU wins Nobel Piece Prize:

http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-peace-prize-could-dissidents-eu-religious-leaders-000634747.html

[GoldCrest]

EU wins Nobel Piece Prize:

http://news.yahoo.com/nobel-peace-prize-could-dissidents-eu-religious-leaders-000634747.html

I am surprise and disappointed by this announcement. But, I guess that is par for the course since the Noble Peace Prize Committee have laughably awarding people/institutions that doesn't deserve it for a while now such as giving the award to Obama.

[hippie_hunter]

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a god damn joke.

[Dr. Evil]

Scots move closer to independence vote:

http://news.yahoo.com/scots-move-closer-vote-independence-uk-152945636.html

[Nitehawk013]

My wife and I went to Paris for our honeymoon. I have wanted to go back, but this news of what France is doing, and how stupid they were in electing and outright socialist, makes me hesitant. Why should I give them my money via tourism if they are this idiotic? When we were there we saw some protesting over the "evil" idea of asking people to wait and retire at (I believe it was) 65 instead of 62 in order to save their government money since they all live of the federal teet. Peopel protesting and angry because they might not get to suckle the pig for those 3 additional years. Selfish, spolied, foolish socialist mentality that for some reason peopel think would just be dandy here.

[Destructus86]

My wife and I went to Paris for our honeymoon. I have wanted to go back, but this news of what France is doing, and how stupid they were in electing and outright socialist, makes me hesitant. Why should I give them my money via tourism if they are this idiotic? When we were there we saw some protesting over the "evil" idea of asking people to wait and retire at (I believe it was) 65 instead of 62 in order to save their government money since they all live of the federal teet. Peopel protesting and angry because they might not get to suckle the pig for those 3 additional years. Selfish, spolied, foolish socialist mentality that for some reason peopel think would just be dandy here.


Dude...Obama (you know...our current president) is a socialist and is swinging farther and farther into that direction...so don't let that stop you :P

[Dr. Evil]

Budget talks fail:

http://news.yahoo.com/budget-clash-leaves-eu-summit-close-failure-010913902--finance.html

[enterthemadness]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57576237/cyprus-banks-to-remain-closed-tuesday/


Cyprus Bank News: Not Cool, Bro.


I read it all now...

Rather see them collapse. What they are doing...:palps: bank run now...now.