ΟΧΙ? Really?

[Rob 2,998]

It's a common theme these days for everyone to blame someone else, because saying mea culpa isn't a vote winner. If politicians ran their countries as well as they managed their own finances, I believe the debt levels would be much lower and by extension manageable. Countries borrow money for the most part because they are incapable of generating sufficient capital internally to fulfil the pledges made to buy votes.

If the various countries of the Eurozone want to maintain their diverse lifestyles, for the less efficient it has to come at a price in the form of wages and therefore purchasing power. A common currency dictates that wages must be lower in line with relative inefficiency and a comparison of services available should reflect the degree to which they can be afforded. The national balance of payments will ultimately determine what luxuries you may or may not be able to enjoy, because a permanent negative balance as seen in this and many other countries is money that has gone forever unless you take steps to build up resereves (i.e reform your economy)

The question of bank debt is a practical example of inappropriate political expediency. Banks were bailed out that should have been allowed to fail with the associated problems for depositors. Individuals need an occasional kick in the nether region to realise that their money is their responsibility and should not be treated as a cossetted asset safeguarded by the state. The willingness to diversify risk would soon take root were this the case. If the problem is genuinely the banks, then politicians need to man up and refuse the loans/money 'forced' upon them. They are voted into power to run the country's finances in a responsible way, but I think it goes without saying that significant and damaging decisions are made by politicians who are not the best tool for the job as this country's PFI projects, or the local government loans discussed on tonight's Channel 4 program amply demonstrate.

[Coinery 926]

When you say the pledges made to buy votes, Rob, isn't that just the problem?

No matter how eloquently this whole thing is put, it's very harsh to blame the average joe on the street, who is 99.9999999% of Greece!

I'm not well versed in politics, so won't be entering into any debate on it, but I think it's too simplistic to say they got themselves into this mess!

It would be the same as saying to me 'you wanted to go to war in Iraq, so live with the consequences!' Now whether I believed in that war or not, I don't remember anyone asking me or my family!

[Coinery 926]

My main issue with this entire thing is there are perhaps only a couple of hundred people who should be the target of all this high-level political judgement. Yet we always forget this and personalise it to anyone, in this instance, who happens to be born Greek.

With the smokescreen that is politics, how much responsibility do we think a waiter in Crete should personally carry for these failings?

I feel terribly sad about it!

[azda 973]

I was watching the Channel 4 news Last night and John Snow interviewed a German female politician in which she said that Germany may put it to a referendum also if Germany should continue giving Money to the Greék Banks, she stated that the problem was'nt with the Greék people, its the banks.

As Rob points out above, if they cannot reform then why continually throw good Money after bad as this money comes in Part from EU taxpayers, i read somewhere recently of someone who had holidayed in Greece and when paying for a meal or whatever it was they were paying for the Place in question wanted cash instead of them paying by card, obviously so ist did'nt go through the Books and tax being liable, its this Part i have the Problem with and its not just Greece, the UK and some corporates are Doing the Same thing.

A rerhink on having a Single currency is needed IMO. The next 48 hrs will see things a Little more clearly i Hope als this has dragged on far too long, Tsparis Talking to Putin won't help matters much either, its nor the First time in the Last few months he's Done this.

[azda 973]

The other thing that actually comes out of the whole Greek situation is that it Shows that austerity does not work. I Wonder if the UK Population is watching and listening because there does'nt seem to be many voices on here slating the UK Government who Are doing exactly the Same thing to its citizens albeit voluntarily by the Government, had Brussels asked the UK to do what they Are doing now there would be the same uproar as we're getting from the Greek situation

Edited July 7, 2015 by azda

[Rob 2,998]

When you say the pledges made to buy votes, Rob, isn't that just the problem?

No matter how eloquently this whole thing is put, it's very harsh to blame the average joe on the street, who is 99.9999999% of Greece!

I'm not well versed in politics, so won't be entering into any debate on it, but I think it's too simplistic to say they got themselves into this mess!

It would be the same as saying to me 'you wanted to go to war in Iraq, so live with the consequences!' Now whether I believed in that war or not, I don't remember anyone asking me or my family!

What you say is exactly what the problem is. Politicians of all countries do things in the name of their citizens and said people have to live with the consequences ad infinitum. That is what makes history. It doesn't matter whether you opposed the Iraq war or not - it has already happened and the money spent. It doesn't matter any more that Gordon Brown sold all the nation's gold reserves off at rock bottom prices - the transaction has completed. If you want to rebuild them, you will have to do it at market rates. The same can be said for the actions of any other politician; Thatcher, De Gaulle, Hitler, Washington, Mugabe, Merkel etc. All would have attracted varying degrees of support and dissent at the time, but their decisions have lasting ramifications for citizens both immediately after, and for some, long into the future.

So we return to the point in question. Government borrowing affects people today and tomorrow. If you don't want to be controlled by the banks, don't borrow. The actions of politicians are mostly restricted to spouting populist policies, or backing pet projects. If people of any country want things done for their benefit, then both good and bad are done in their name with collective responsibility for the outcome. Benefit provision costs money, which is usually borrowed. More happens at a local level when you have a sense of community - something that has been lost to a great extent in much of the developed world primarily on the back of greed and avarice. Materialism has a lot to answer for, as without it, far less capital would be borrowed.

Politicians of most democracies are voted into power by either the largest minority or occasionally an outright majority, but the entire population has to live with the consequences. It doesn't really matter whether the point in question is a financial one or a political one, it will be opposed by something approaching a majority because of political division.

[ChKy 61]

So we return to the point in question. Government borrowing affects people today and tomorrow. If you don't want to be controlled by the banks, don't borrow. The actions of politicians are mostly restricted to spouting populist policies, or backing pet projects. If people of any country want things done for their benefit, then both good and bad are done in their name with collective responsibility for the outcome. Benefit provision costs money, which is usually borrowed. More happens at a local level when you have a sense of community - something that has been lost to a great extent in much of the developed world primarily on the back of greed and avarice. Materialism has a lot to answer for, as without it, far less capital would be borrowed.

That is kind of right-wing, conservative oppinion. Give the rich people even more money and some crumbs will fall down the table for amusement of the poor.

It is easy to transform the sentence you wrote in: Bank provision and rescue of ramshakle banks costs money, which is usually borrowed... by doing this the "money" is borrowed twice, that has to be paid sooner or later. And I rather prefer to pay for social insurance instead for parasitic investment banks.

That leads us to the question about the nature of money. The FIAT-money we are used to handle is by its nature non-temporary credit. it is created money, created out of thin air. That should be clear to everybody, especially in this forum, were people are used to collect and think about money.

Edited July 7, 2015 by ChKy

[Rob 2,998]

I have no problem in putting forward a right of centre opinion as like many people, I am a mixture of both political sides. Neither side has a monopoly on common sense. However, far too many people want to live in a nanny state where everything is provided and personal accountability isn't required. Apparently all the problems in the world are someone else's fault - make the 'rich' pay - whatever that means. This dependency culture doesn't solve problems, but does create its own. Benefit provision by and large doesn't generate wealth, so as a cost is merely digging a deeper hole.

I think you have grasped the wrong end of the stick. I'm not saying that borrowing should occur to provide benefits, rather that people should organise more at a local level to provide things without recourse to beaurocracy which is inevitably clunky, inefficient, politically motivated and always over budget by the time palms have been greased.

I quite agree. Banks (amongst others) are parasitic which is why I don't think they should have been bailed out. Irresponsible banks should fail, and more importantly be seen to fail, but it is equally important that people realise their money isn't safe in a bank and by not looking after their own assets are also at risk of loss. It is incumbent on everyone to take steps to look after their own property. Things you have to buy are less likely to be thrown away. Self funding produces better husbanding of resources. It is actually the only way forward because borrowing without any intention of repaying a loan or the nebulous concept of simply making the rich pay is a false call. You could denude the top 100 richest people in this country of their entire wealth and give it to everyone else, but the handout per person would only amount to a few £Ks each.

[Peter 615]

My favourite holiday ever is Crete.

Fantastic people.history.beaches.food....talk about chilling out.

I just hope they can recover.

[ChKy 61]

In my view the "rich" do not contribute enough in a society. The common people can not really evade taxation, they have to cover most of the risk.

During the seven years of debt crisis the subject to social insurance contribution had to suffer cuts in payments and pension, had to pay for tax increasements. The holders of diversified stocks, fonds and bonds earned huge profits over the time. The liquidity is transferred from the "poor" to the "rich". In last consequence the working power of common people was more and more not transfered into benefit provision (that was cut down instead), but into interests and dividends. The debt crisis helped the rich people to become richer, the crisis has been caused in last consequence by rich people and their inverstment banks. So it might be logic to let those people pay.

Edited July 7, 2015 by ChKy

[bagerap 706]

Creation of money is no longer the sole right of the central banks. Total global debt exceeds total global GDP, and that debt is increasing exponentially on a daily basis. The reason is Fractional Reserve Banking, which allows private banks to create money pretty much out of thin air. Most Sovereign debt, including that of Greece, exists on paper only.

Edited July 7, 2015 by bagerap

[ChKy 61]

Creation of money is no longer the sole right of the central banks. Total global debt exceeds total global GDP, and that debt is increasing exponentially on a daily basis. The reason is Fractional Reserve Banking, which allows private banks to create money pretty much out of thin air. Most Sovereign debt, including that of Greece, exists on paper only.

Good and correct comment!

[ChKy 61]

"I urge all my Facebook friends to please help us track this man even the journalists who wrote this or anyone out there who may have media ties please urgent !
This man is a old school friend of my late father !
Gap finance and I will pay this mans pension for 12 months plus !!! As long as it takes !!
170 euros a week ? We will give him 250 euros !
I will never allow to see a fellow Greek proud hardworking man starve !!
Please please if anyone can help track this man down with his details I urge you to contact us pls !!!!!
Pls anyone who can help with his whereabouts and details !!"

found here: https://www.facebook.com/james.koufos/posts/10153405078268686

[Rob 2,998]

Which is why you should be debt free and hold diverse investments which are physical assets that have a value - land, property, gold, and to a much lesser extent paper of which currencies are part. In that way you are not beholden to your creditors, plus you have something to fall back on when the financial systems go into free-fall. Why does the average person rely on deposit guarantees and not actively manage their relatively meagre savings? If there was ever a case for looking after number one this is it.

The topic is drifting a bit, so to return to the original point, how exactly is the problem to be resolved? Greece still wants someone to give them a funded lifestyle that they can't afford. Even if all their debt was written off, the country is still structurally defective. In common with most of the world, it can't generate sufficient income to provide all the benefits the people demand or the standard of living enjoyed by the wealthiest nations and more importantly, no system left or right, dictatorship or commune can do away with the haves and the have nots. In the absence of an alternative to the staus quo, you have to live within your means for a sustainable lifestyle.

Only the very largest countries in physical terms could ever hope to be self sustaining (e.g. USA, China, Russia, Canada) as only they have sufficiently diverse resources to do without imports should the need arise.

[bagerap 706]

"Preliminary estimates now are that total offshore oil in Greek waters exceeds 22 billion barrels in the Ionian Sea off western Greece and some 4 billion barrels in the northern Aegean Sea"

The topic is drifting a bit, so to return to the original point, how exactly is the problem to be resolved? Greece still wants someone to give them a funded lifestyle that they can't afford. Even if all their debt was written off, the country is still structurally defective. In common with most of the world, it can't generate sufficient income to provide all the benefits the people demand or the standard of living enjoyed by the wealthiest nations and more importantly, no system left or right, dictatorship or commune can do away with the haves and the have nots. In the absence of an alternative to the staus quo, you have to live within your means for a sustainable lifestyle.

[Rob 2,998]

It depends on what the recovery rate is as 26 billion barrels is not necessarily recoverable oil which is a major consideration given Greece sits on a fault line with regular earthquakes. Like any solution it can only be temporary even if fully exploited. It also requires bought in expertise to exploit which means capital loss to foreign oil companies and ancilliary service companies. No business will supply services without suitable recompense. With it also being a recent discovery, it doesn't get away from the point that Greece was happily spending money it didn't have prior to this. That is a cultural problem (not restricted to Greece) which it is reasonable to assume has not gone away.

Just a thought, but if Greece wants to develop the fields, why doesn't it offer a tax amnesty to all those Greeks who have supposedly not paid their fair share in return for freeing up funds, developing the fields and keeping the oil in Greek hands?

[ChKy 61]

Just a thought, but if Greece wants to develop the fields, why doesn't it offer a tax amnesty to all those Greeks who have supposedly not paid their fair share in return for freeing up funds, developing the fields and keeping the oil in Greek hands?

That is in discussion already.

BTW isn´t it true that the EU denied further financial support if annual income exceeding 500,000 Euro would have been taxed with a singular fee in order to get sufficient funding? In discussion it is argued that EU insisted to charge pensions and wages of common people.

Edited July 7, 2015 by ChKy

[azda 973]

Changes to wages and pensions has also happened in the UK Christoph, pensionable age has increased to 67, what is the age a Greek can claim rente? The attached came from the BBC news app from the Irish Finamce minister

Edited July 7, 2015 by azda

[bagerap 706]

And of course, there is another side to the Irish story. Whilst the Pols get pay rises, the proles get shafted. Is it starting to sound like the Greek experience?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/irelands-austerity-success-is-no-model-for-greece-340662.html

[azda 973]

The SNP wanted NO austerity cuts, our English friends were scared and will now be shafted even more. Glad I'm not living in the UK right now.

[ChKy 61]

Changes to wages and pensions has also happened in the UK Christoph, pensionable age has increased to 67, what is the age a Greek can claim rente? The attached came from the BBC news app from the Irish Finamce minister

That is common in the conservative, neo-liberal theory of economic science regardless the nation it occurs. Drop the price for human work and make products cheaper. The potential profit of enterprises increases and that will boost economy. Human life and work is degraded to some kind of resource and expense factor. That is a kind of old-fashioned, inhuman and ugly theory.

As far as I know Greeks can claim Rente with 65. In Germany it was raised to 67 and dropped again lateron. People doing hard jobs go earlier anyways...

Edited July 7, 2015 by ChKy

[ChKy 61]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age

[Rob 2,998]

The price of goods is becoming progressively cheaper because they are being produced in low cost countries. If you don't want them made abroad you have to pay a higher price for a locally produced item. This is both the benefit and down side of globalisation. To manufacture goods locally at the same price level you have to automate production, but don't expect a jobs bonanza on the back of it. Businesses need people as consumers, but for very little else. As idle hands tend to make mischief, the best use for the economically inactive is to take up the slack where social provision is missing. Not full time necessarily, but something requiring a little self discipline.

[ChKy 61]

The price of goods is becoming progressively cheaper because they are being produced in low cost countries.

Do not forget the quality of the product. In order to compete against products from low cost countries you have to have an high end product. In a functional market a product of higher quality commits a higher price. In our situation nowbody looks for better quality, everything goes via low price. The fatal message is that product quality (including education) is not worth it...

Businesses need people as consumers, but for very little else.

The counter oppinion of that neo-liberal idea is, that employees with sufficient income are solvent consumers. A worker should be able to afford the own products (Henry Ford?). But in a globalized world employers do not care about these things. They try to produce cheaply (eg pay minimal wages, low quality raw materials) and sell them expensive somewhere else.

eg Most cars produced in Germany are subsequently exported, no average employee in automobile industry can honestly afford and maintain a brand new upper class BMW or Mercedes.

Here in Germany you can find business sectors with very low payment (full time - 40 hours per week), below the official poverty line. These people have to ask for public support granted by the social insurance.

Come on you might argue, no person with common sence would accept such conditions. Well... that might apply for a functional, free market. But it is not free, the government applies stress in order to force you in such a contract. The government releases such laws in order to provide cheap working power for its industry.

The same thing was tried in countries like Portugal, Spain, Italy or Greece. At least in latter country the people try to defend themselves against such brutal misuse. Now in Spain the left-winged Podemos tries to act and win the next election. We will see if the European people can re-take their continental union from that neo-liberal clique...

Edited July 7, 2015 by ChKy

[Rob 2,998]

I'm not so sure the quality argument holds up. I far prefer quality over price. I hate shopping which means one purchase every 10 years is more than twice as good as 2 purchases at 5 year intervals. The reality is I want something to last as long as possible. What I have noticed though in the past is that product lifespan is purchaser dependent. Our frugal lifestyle dictates that garden furniture be treated to provide as long service as possible. Somebody we know who couldn't care less bought the same item at the same time. Ours lasted 14 years, theirs was thrown out the following one and replaced. They are also allegedly poor. Some higher education is worthwhile, indeed it is necessary, but other areas could be covered by vocational training.

I think many people are a tad deluded about wages in the west. The developed economies got to where they are by raping the third world of its natural resources at a discounted rate. The colonial powers did not invest heavily in the commodity producing areas. Today we live in a global economy and the same third world is playing catchup. Our salaries have to converge with the newly developing countries as a consequence of their increased industrial base (and our declining one). There is no sensible case that can be made for our producing less whilst at the same time demanding more. The west has had its time and now we are in a period of adjustment. Germany is in a relatively good position because of its resilient industrial base - many countries are not. To then suggest that we can all award ourselves a big pat on the back and a payrise is exactly what people are complaining the politicians and bankers are doing. If they are wrong to take excessive amounts for doing nothing, I fail to see how it can then be necessary, or desirable, for the whole of the European Union to award itself the same unearned 'freebies', unless you are trying to make two wrongs equal to a right.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying the European people can re-take their continental union. If wages rise, then the price of goods will follow and so the purchasing power of an average wages will essentially stay the same. It won't follow exactly, but should track it fairly well. All of the world's businesses are trying to get the highest possible price for their products. Consumers will always oblige by putting silly amounts of money into the next must have gadget.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Rob