Greece crisis: Europe on edge over snap election

[Harry H]

Hastings Gull.
I think that you are the cleverest person on the planet.
Now there are two of us should we start a club?

 

[beorhthelm]

We are in a position now where not everyone has to work. In fact we are approaching an age where we will soon not have nearly enough work to do, as more and more jobs are replaced by computers, robots and machines. We need to start preparing for that world. So, considering that, perhaps "incentivising" labour in that way is no longer a necessity.

please get out of the commune and join the real world. who pays for those that dont work? who decides who will and will not work? who forces those that have been assigne to work that dont wish to, to do so? your about the world of computer, robots and machines is very valid, one that needs to be addressed most probably through seismic changes in population.

the concept you paint of "basic income" is indeed tried and tested and is already here - its called benefits. someone in receipt of unemployment and housing will be receiving more than in that illustration (its about £200p/w in todays prices). people do have a basic living on benefits, but people want more than a basic living. they want all the things those things others going to work have. and then some. we've seen how well this works as an incentive. we've also seen in USSR and China how well central controlled economies work, directed by experts. they dont. China adopted market economic policies in the late 1970's and turned them around from a impoverished nation to global economic superpower. Communist-Capitialism thats not something you'd think of, but certain working better than your idea.

oh, and Piketty's arguements are flawed, because he doesnt account for the existing redistribution within the system. he attributes nothing to education, health, welfare that has tangible value to the recipient if you were calculating everything from a neutral position.

 

[Hastings gull]

It genuinely is an economic fact, it's been understood since its conception. I'm sure any economist will tell you the same thing , it's a matter of 'when" rather than 'if". The day it will end is when economic growth is no longer possible, we will wake up one day and the cash machines will no longer work - it will make the great depression seem like a stroll in the park - and this could realistically happen in our lifetime... This is why this debate is so important.

So it could happen -I thought that it was going to happen and that this is fact.

 

[Hastings gull]

Hastings Gull.
I think that you are the cleverest person on the planet.
Now there are two of us should we start a club?

Alcohol?

 

[Triggaaar]

Are you saying there is absolutely no other system better than the one we have?

I said there never has been a system better than what we have. I am not saying that there won't be a better system in the future. You said you've named countless better systems - which one of them has worked, what was the society and time period?

 

[Triggaaar]

If you want a more in depth analysis on our failing capitalist system, here's one from a mind that is far greater than mine or yours, or most likely anyone else on NSC, Thomas Pikkety.

He doesn't say that the capitalist system is broken, and he doesn't say that there's a better alternative to the capitalist system.

 

[Hastings gull]

You still have this ridiculous attitude that if it hasn't happened yet, then there can't be anything better.
And this is what the post actually wrote:

I said there never has been a system better than what we have. I am not saying that there won't be a better system in the future

 

[Hastings gull]

I find the "seismic changed in population" comment quite concerning. So your solution to humanity's future unemployment problems will be to reduce the population? I would love to hear your suggestion as to how this could be possible, especially as this current economic system requires population growth. Surely the more sensible and progressive solution would to be simply reduce working hours and increase minimum wages (a basic wage would be for ALL, not just the unemployed and disabled)

Benefits are a fantastic thing, but it's a system that needs improving and is by no means fair. There are currently 3.5 million children in the UK living in relative poverty. 12 million people overall - this is totally unacceptable, especially when you consider most of adults those ARE in work - the wages for those at the bottom are just pathetic, and this could be solved with a basic wage.

I really don't understand how some people can marvel at glaring inequality and the suffering at those at the bottom - when the wealth could so simply be distributed fairly without harming productivity, ending poverty.

Is this the not a glaring example of your fantasy world? No one disagrees with your repeated assertion that there is inequality, but the solutions such as you put forward are so simplistic. Who is going to pay for millions to have these increased benefits, and what sort of mindset would it create? Yes, there is undoubted child poverty in the UK, but to what extent might it be a case of father running off and refusing to pay for children, thus the state picks up the tag. The CSA in Hastings employs many people to chase absent and reluctant fathers and the state pays out billions in benefits that should not be necessary. Of course this is not the child's fault, and they should naturally be supported, but don't talk about a broken system necessarily. Yes, it would be good to increase the minimum wage so that all members of society might have the financial ability to partake in all that this country has to offer, but this would come at a price, literally. If an employer is forced to pay more, irrespective of any moral arguments, and there is no increased productivity, then he/she has two options -put up the price or lower your costs -which could well mean redundancies. This is the real world.

 

[Horses Arse]

[/B]
The usual extreme and blinkered nonsense from you. The Greeks have themselves to blame -they have paid pensions at a ridiculously early stage and from what I read, it is left to the tax payers own level of honesty, or otherwise, when declaring taxes, hence government coffers were not full. How can capitalism be blamed for that. I can understand that a left-wing government would appeal when they want an end to austerity -who wouldn't vote for a party that offered cash for all and an end to austerity, particularly if you are one of the poorest in society. I can well imagine, however, that they will not be saying anything to the electorate about how this change in policy would be financed. The EU made Greek austerity a condition for loans, as they knew that, left to themselves, the Greeks would not change radically and only appear with the begging bowl later on. Of course it is easy to blame the Germans for being dictatorial, but then they are being asked to pay the lion's share of any bail-out, and if you, the reader, were to be asked to finance, say a charity or something similar, then you would also want guarantees that at the very least your hard-earned money was being put to good use.

If the Greek system for tax collection and pensions was so arbitrary, so lax, what does it say about the EU that accepted them in? What was the motivation for doing so? What do you think drove that decision in the face of overwhelming evidence of a failing system and economy?

If I was debt ridden and clearly spending beyond my means and a bank agreed to provide a mortgage for a smart new house is the bank completely in the clear when I default on my payments? Is it all my fault when the house is repossessed and sold at a fraction of its value to some wealthy landlord to make yet more money while I scrape a survival and live in poverty or does the bank hold some responsibility do you think?

I'm pretty sure that the Greek government and people have responsibility but I'm equally sure that the capitalist approach drove them and encourages such results; it is effectively collateral damage associated with the capitalist approach. Admittedly it's huge collateral damage but the EU making the decisions have a responsibility for what has occurred. A refusal to accept Greece based on their failing economy and lax tax that equated to a bankrupt country would have done far more for the Greeks than encouraging them to continue to live beyond their means surely.

 

[Hastings gull]

If the Greek system for tax collection and pensions was so arbitrary, so lax, what does it say about the EU that accepted them in? What was the motivation for doing so? What do you think drove that decision in the face of overwhelming evidence of a failing system and economy?

If I was debt ridden and clearly spending beyond my means and a bank agreed to provide a mortgage for a smart new house is the bank completely in the clear when I default on my payments? Is it all my fault when the house is repossessed and sold at a fraction of its value to some wealthy landlord to make yet more money while I scrape a survival and live in poverty or does the bank hold some responsibility do you think?

I'm pretty sure that the Greek government and people have responsibility but I'm equally sure that the capitalist approach drove them and encourages such results; it is effectively collateral damage associated with the capitalist approach. Admittedly it's huge collateral damage but the EU making the decisions have a responsibility for what has occurred. A refusal to accept Greece based on their failing economy and lax tax that equated to a bankrupt country would have done far more for the Greeks than encouraging them to continue to live beyond their means surely.

I am sure that there is merit to what you say. I do recall many years ago reading a critique in Germany to the effect that the Germans and other countries knew, or must at least have had a good idea - what they were letting themselves in for, by allowing a country such as Greece into the EU. I see what you are saying about the bank - surely their degree of culpability would of course depend on how honest you were with the bank when applying for the mortgage! Ok, lets assume that the EU did decide to take a gamble, and as you are suggesting, capitalist greed may well have had something to do with it. I would not be in a position to comment further on that, as I don't really know enough about economics. And to be fair, we don't know what assurances the Greeks originally gave, and to what extent they were prepared to live up to it, either, or whether they were in fact encouraged to live beyond their means, which they certainly have done.

 

[The Spanish]

I am sure that there is merit to what you say. I do recall many years ago reading a critique in Germany to the effect that the Germans and other countries knew, or must at least have had a good idea - what they were letting themselves in for, by allowing a country such as Greece into the EU. I see what you are saying about the bank - surely their degree of culpability would of course depend on how honest you were with the bank when applying for the mortgage! Ok, lets assume that the EU did decide to take a gamble, and as you are suggesting, capitalist greed may well have had something to do with it. I would not be in a position to comment further on that, as I don't really know enough about economics. And to be fair, we don't know what assurances the Greeks originally gave, and to what extent they were prepared to live up to it, either, or whether they were in fact encouraged to live beyond their means, which they certainly have done.

Add to that Greece backing cyprus entry, and cyprus pretty much guaranteeing a yes vote for the Annan plan on the back of eu membership, which was never going to happen, and you can see the farce that is the eu. I suppose rules are there to be broken. Now you have an Eu country where their regulations are suspended as its in part occupied militarily. Brilliant work. Unless of course the long game was to keep Turkey out, but I don't think anyone involved is that smart.

 

[Triggaaar]

You still have this ridiculous attitude that if it hasn't happened yet, then there can't be anything better.

That isn't my attitude and isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that we don't have and never have had a better system. Maybe there will be one one day, but we don't have it now. You've disagreed with that, and said "there are countless alternatives, as I've said time and time again", but we have no evidence of an alternative being better yet. You post a link to a Piketty speech, and he's of the same opinion as me - we haven't found anything better yet.

As beorhthelm quoted in post #121, 'capitalism is the worst form of economy except all those others that have been tried from time to time.'

Go back a few hundred years and two people are having this discussion - one with a theory of capitalism, and the other saying "name one place that it's ever worked" - it's extremely puerile to be so close minded to the extend that you think it's impossible for humanity to do something it has never done before, when the exact opposite defines human history.

But I'm not saying that! I am not at all suggesting that we should never try anything else. I'm simply saying that we don't have a better alternative yet.

If you posted saying "I don't like our system, we should try something else, but I don't know what", I'd be having a discussion with you about how we can test other systems to come up with something better, but instead you're saying "there are countless better system" - well clearly there are none that we know about.

His whole book is about how capitalism is broken - he doesn't suggest there's a better alternative to capitalism

So even this wonderful mind that you turn to doesn't have a better alternative. (please note I'm still not suggesting we don't ever look for one)

but he does give suggestions how to fix it, largely through a global wealth tax, which he concedes unfortunately is unlikely to happen.

So, basically what I've said all along.

I have no problem with the idea that there be a limit to personal wealth, and the idea some resources are shared. My issue is that I don't see how we go to a foreign country and get their resources without resorting to war, which none of us want.

 

[Triggaaar]

Just as Hastings gull has, can I point out how ridiculous this is:

I said there never has been a system better than what we have. I am not saying that there won't be a better system in the future.

You still have this ridiculous attitude that if it hasn't happened yet, then there can't be anything better.

 

[Hastings gull]

There's more than enough money for a Basic Wage, it's just in the wrong places. Look to the corporations and the wealthy elites who now have a majority of all wealth.

I do think we need to do more to promote a positive culture to avoid problems like you mention with single parenthood and diminishing moral values. This could be achieved by improved regulation of the media, for example by setting strict standards with newspapers (eg. making red tops have a glossy finish and classifying them as magazines) or improving the quality of other media to promote moral values.

In regards to making the employer pay more, if they don't like it then tough - it is their duty to pay a living wage, and this is why there needs to be a global effort to tackle corporate greed, or change capitalism for the better from its very root.

I think you may have a point here, but this is really only scratching the surface, is it not? Whilst we have a benefits system that will step in readily, then relationship break-downs will always happen rather too easily. Of course this is not the only issue, I fully appreciate.

Of course an employer should pay a living wage, but then, as ever, you conveniently jump to conclude that it is corporate greed. Whilst I don't doubt that this will to an extent be the case, I was rather thinking of the many thousands of smaller businesses, which would genuinely find it hard to be faced, all of a sudden, with a demand from government (who won't have to foot the bill) to pay more. Perhaps a sliding scale could be introduced, whereby a "living wage" could be increased by a little bit each month?? You might not like this, but it is quite feasible that an employer simply does not feel that a particular job merits a "living wage" ie a relatively large pay rise. Yes, they could be forced by law, but I assume that the law would not be able to stop them making people redundant, if the employer comes to the conclusion that to keep staff on just does not make economic sense - there is, presumably, a point, when a business simply cannot put their prices up any more. I would be interested to hear what an economist would make of this.

 

[Hastings gull]

Sorry, in my haste this morning I misread what you said.

Fantastic then - we can all agree that the glaring inequality needs to be changed - and better systems are not only possible, but inevitable.

So this is why we need to be having this discussion, to discuss the alternatives (and there are many to choose from) you've already heard my preferred ideas, so let's hear yours.

How can humanity change capitalism for the better? Basic income & Global Wealth Tax are rapidly growing & increasingly popular concepts - I think we should all rally in support of those.

You have tried this one on before! No, we do NOT agree with you that better systems are inevitable - this is you adding that bit on to gain a bit of one-upmanship! Are these concepts increasingly popular? Who says so? We have heard yours and quite frankly, it is a case of fantasy world. I accept that there is inequality, but am not at all sure that anything can be done about this, given human nature. Yes you could introduce a global tax in theory, but is this remotely feasible? No it is not, as you well know. Capitalism, warts and all, has brought many benefits to the world, and I suppose you have to live with (even if you do not like it) relative inequality. Yes, it make stick in the throat of some folk, but as yet, no one on this thread has come up with anything realistic as to how you could fairly re-distribute, and once you have, how you stop resourceful and diligent people again becoming rich - simply saying that you don't want folk to get too rich is hardly a viable solution and far too vague.

 

[Triggaaar]

Sorry, in my haste this morning I misread what you said.

No worries.

Fantastic then - we can all agree that the glaring inequality needs to be changed - and better systems are not only possible, but inevitable.

Well I don't suppose we can all agree, I'm sure there will be plenty of differing opinions. I personally would agree that change would be good, and something to work towards, but I wouldn't say the change you're after is inevitable. I think one of the fundamental points I disagree with you about is the natural behaviour of humans, so I don't think the change you'd like to see will be possible - regardless, I'd like to hope that things can be improved from where they are now.

So this is why we need to be having this discussion, to discuss the alternatives

Not a bad plan.

(and there are many to choose from) you've already heard my preferred ideas, so let's hear yours.

How can humanity change capitalism for the better? Basic income & Global Wealth Tax are rapidly growing & increasingly popular concepts - I think we should all rally in support of those.

I think they are good goals. Pikkety talks about increased transparency in banking, which should help. I think if the public are educated about the gulf in world wealth, they are more likely to want something to be done about it. In order to make a change we could do with the world acting as one, and obviously the world is an extremely fractured place, and we have more pressing issues around the world than the huge inequalities - ie, the killing and oppression of people.

I'd like to see world wide democracy before I'd worry too much about the economics (not that we shouldn't still discuss the economics)

 

[Triggaaar]

Excellent, you would probably support Direct Democracy then.

I'd take any democracy over what most of the world has to live with.

There is absolutely no way that representative democracy (what we have now) would work on a global scale

I should point out that that is the attitude many of us have with global equality, and you don't like us to presume that things can't be better in the future, which is what you're doing here.

First things first, down with Westminster elitism!

What do you mean, exactly?

 

[Hastings gull]

That's more like it, your previous post was nowhere near contentious enough, I found myself agreeing with much of it.

I was actually specifically addressing Triggaaar who has several times has said he agrees that inequality is a problem and that there will be better systems in the future.

Global Wealth Tax has been popularised in the last few months by Picketty, mentioned earlier in the thread and is being widely talked about, particularly in the States, but also all 48 countries that his book was published. I can only see this concept gaining further popularity, especially if he wins the Nobel prize, as it is one of the best and most viable solutions to the inequality problem -and I suspect it will be supported by many of the ethical 1%ers who fear the inevitable backlash of increasing inequality too.

Equally, although Basic Income perhaps has less traction as it is a much older concept, again it is being widely and increasingly discussed by the media and academics - for examples, see the Google News feed, link: https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=96NjVJPJOufH8gei84DoDw#q=basic+income&safe=off&tbm=nws

Remember, it isn't just me who supports these ideas, far from it - people are debating these concepts all around the world and they are very well supported - NSC probably is not the best place to discuss them, but there is a lot of momentum being gained with both of these theories and ever increasing debate surrounding the very serious problem of growing inequality in general. I suspect you don't truly appreciate how serious it is, or how seriously it is being taken by the public and academics alike.

I must confess that I have never heard of this character. It may have been published in 48 countries, but that is hardly proof that it is widely talked about. Yes, academics may discuss it, but believe me, after so many years in education, academic's grip on reality is not always that great. Go into town tomorrow and ask people going past whether they have heard of whatever his name is, Pinky or something, and how many do you think would say yes - 5% at most, would be my guess.
I am sure that it is not just you who discusses all these theories, as you say, but am also sure that they are not widely discussed, as you claim in order to lend a bit of credence to your theories. It may well be that I don't totally appreciate the level of inequality, as I have never studied economics, but I am certain about two things - firstly that the public in general is not as bothered as you think, which of course is why you felt it necessary to add the caveat about NSC as this is a glaring example of how the public fails to react to you. Secondly, that my feet are firmly on the ground, still waiting for you to explain how you are going to overcome human nature. And, also, I am still waiting for those polls you talked about saying that the system has broken . .

 

[TomandJerry]

With Greece just three weeks away from the general election on Jan. 25, called after the country's politicians failed to elect a president at the end of December, Athens is firmly back in Europe's spotlight along with a serious discussion about whether Greece will remain in the euro.

That's because Syriza, the radical leftist coalition that wants to tear up the country's bailout rules, looks likely to win. That means a game of chicken with the EU institutions and International Monetary Fund. If either side refuses to back down, there could be market chaos, bank runs, and a forced exit from the euro


The link is very interesting

http://uk.businessinsider.com/greeces-political-crisis-euro-2015-1

 

[TomandJerry]

Euro hits 9-year low on Grexit rumours

The German government has insisted it wants Greece to stay in the eurozone and will not be ‘blackmailed’ into changing the terms of the country’s bailout

http://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/live/2015/jan/05/euro-hits-9-year-low-on-grexit-rumours-live