At the start of the Eurocrisis, the PIIGS of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain were targeted at the countries that would be hit the hardest and drag everyone down with them and so it seems this is what has happened.
Spain are on the brink of asking for a 200 billion Euro bailout so it must be time to consider losing the Euro and all countries return to the their own currency or everyone joining together to make one European superstate.
So far, the PIIGS have received over £2 Trillion of bailout money and yet they are still set to collapse so the choices are continue giving them money and setting more severe austerity measures that they patently can't enforce or just let the whole thing collapse and have done with it.
Obviously £2 trillion is not enough so we can pay it again and hope things pick up and the whole thing may well fall down still anyway or cut our losses and bring it to a halt now.
I don't know why the PIIGS can't be dropped from the Euro and let them go back to their Drachmas and Lira and leave the rest of the Euro countries to carry on, we kept our pound and still trade so why can't Spain?
I have heard that the UK stand to lose up to 4% of our GDP if Greece comes out of the Euro, why? Greece will still be there and it will still buy and sell with us so why should it matter if they pay in Euros or Drachma?
I don't understand the mechanics of how it all works but i can see when we are throwing good money after bad and the PIIGS are draining the rest of Europe so cut them loose, let them run things there own way because the worst possible outcome is what we have now where nobody does anything except kick the can up the road and hope that by the time we get to it things have improved.
I see the choices as let the whole thing go, let the PIIGS go or all jump in lock, stock and barrel. None of them ideal but something has to be done.
15 comments:
lucy,
the piigs are fellow socialist nations. how can you just throw them under the bus? don't you want to be like them? shouldn't you help them survive?
you are confusing me...
q
Federate. That's the answer to the Europe problem.
Give the United States of Europe power over:
-Tax Collection for amounts necessary to fund the United States (of Europe)
-Central Banking
-Military (at least for defensive and "European sphere" issues)
-Lots of other stuff
"the piigs are fellow socialist nations."
They're only 'socialist' in terms of the new meaning of the word that's floating around the internet i.e. 'anyone I perceive to be further to the left than myself'. They're not socialist in terms of the real meaning of the word.
They're mixed economies, of course, some of which employ a smaller percentage of the workforce in the public sector - and have lower rates of corporation tax - than, say, the United States.
"Federate. That's the answer to the Europe problem."
It would certainly simplify the tax and banking spheres that you mention (i.e. we could make the Greeks start to actually pay some tax) but fewer people actually want this today than at any time since the Treaty of Rome first reared its ugly head, so it's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes. There's more talk of disengagement now than any sort of union. I'm pretty happy about this, myself. Life is about much, much more than the economy.
cheezy good points. socialism like capitalism are actually "pure" states or they doesn't exist. when merely partial they can prevail or influence but i don't think there are any pure captalist nations. maybe socialist, not sure...
q
I don't understand the whole Euro currency thing either. Leaving the Euro, staying in the Euro...I readily admit that's all over my head, though I would like to have someone explain it to me.
What I do understand is the concept that there is an actual limit to how much a country can borrow. A lot of people in the US and elsewhere really just take for granted the fact that we've been borrowing tons of $ forever without too much trouble. But there's definitely a limit.
Also, I've read that if Greece goes back to the Drachma, it will be extremely devalued so that basically all Greeks (that still have their $ in Greek banks) will loose most all of their savings. For this reason alone, I think the we don't need the Euro talk from the anti-austerity parties in Greece is just tough talk. If they leave the Euro and all their savings are inflationed into nothingness, their country will collapse.
And, just a random thought, why doesn't Greece sell some of their military? They actually have a pretty sizable navy for such a small country, and it's not like they need it for anything.
I'm probably a bit touchier about the definition of political terms than most people, having studied it for years, but the abuse of language in this area really does rip my sack.
Despite the bullshit I've read over recent years, people need to understand that there are no socialist countries in Western Europe. They all operate some form of capitalism (whether they fit anyone's definition of 'purity' or not) in which one of the primary goals of the state is to safeguard private property rights, and in which the means of production is mainly privately owned.
I'm old-fashioned though. I was taught 'Learn what words mean, then you can start to use them'. A ridiculous amount of people don't do this, which is why I've heard everyone from Vince Cable to Barack Obama to the Clintons to Tony Blair being called a 'socialist'. This might tell me something about the person using the word; it tells me absolutely nothing about the subject.
I have seen the socialist countries of Europe are bankrupt comments on many sites and just ignore it. I guessed someone on Fox News or somewhere had said it and it was just being repeated by people who either can't be bothered to look it up or just take Fox News as gospel.
Nog - I have long thought that Europe's problem was that what it had was halfway and they should go the whole hog and make up the USE and i still think that is the solution but can't see that happening, too much history possibly.
effay - It is hard to get anyone to explain it properly, i keep hearing that it would be as disaster if Greece leaves the Euro but nobody says why. I do remember Greece and Spain and Italy having to fudge their figures in order to get into the Euro in the first place and i can't get anyone to explain how, if the PIIGS are such a drain on our resources, how it can be anything other than beneficial to the rest of Europe if they left it. They will still be there trading just not in Euro's so why would that be such a disaster?
what i dont understand is why germany doesn't flip off the whole EU and reinstate their own currency. i think it is because the rest of europe is their marketplace and if the EU nations don't buy german goods and services then the germans will soon have economic problems.
cheezy, i understand the importance of definitions. it just doesn't seem that you call them out all the time... then bang, you get all definitional.
from a RELATIVE perspective, european nations are viewed by americans to be more "socialist" than the usa. that perspective is not limited to fox news.
lucy, fox news did not create an american movement. it enable 40% or 50% of the nation to finally have an outlet that shares their personal views.
q
I think the media, not just Fox news but most of the big networks, provide a view to many people who instantly agree/disagree on principal but don't know why until they are told.
Even though I don't understand it, I get the impression that the Euro is really good for Germany (perhaps, as noted by q, because the Euro makes it easier for other European countries to buy German exports?), so they don't want anyone to leave, but Germany also holds lots of Europe's debt, so they don't want anyone to renegotiate the loans or have anyone default.
"from a RELATIVE perspective, european nations are viewed by americans to be more "socialist" than the usa. that perspective is not limited to fox news."
Yes, I realise that's how they're viewed. The view is stupid and just plain wrong, is what I'm saying. It would be better (although still inaccurate in many ways) if they used the word 'more' to precede 'socialist' (as you did above) but they don't. They just use the word without having the faintest idea of what it means.
"i understand the importance of definitions. it just doesn't seem that you call them out all the time"
Political terminology being used inaccurately by people who can'[t be bothered to learn the meaning of these words* always sticks in my craw. The 'socialist' one is the most ubiquitous one around at the moment, so that might be why I've broken my silence. I'll shut up now though :)
* or maybe it's in their political interest to misapply these words?
i dont want you to shut up. i'm just a tad lazy about my terminology at times.
to me the biggie is using "liberal" and "left" interchangabely.
q
i dont want you to shut up. i'm just a tad lazy about my terminology at times.
to me the biggie is using "liberal" and "left" interchangabely.
q
You're right, that's a shocker as well. A large number of people, certainly in this country, are socially liberally but economically leaning to the left. This is not a contradictory or inherently illogical position, but neither is it one unitary view.
Post a Comment