The Greek Crisis

[UchihaSasuke.gr]

http://www.greekcrisis.net/

What are your thoughts? Have you seen the news about the subject?

Do you think we have a chance or are we screwed?

My mother hasn't been paid the last 4 months. I spend about 75% less money.
I would like to listen anyone's opinions.

 

[Sky Green]

My opinion is that you sir are FUCKED UP! I mean, 4 months wow, that's some serious shit. Anywho, what does your mum do?

Also you're screwed dude

 

[Magtheridon96]

I've heard about this.

 

[UchihaSasuke.gr]

I try to spend no money at all. haha

 

[Mechanical Man]

And the money we give to Greece is for french and german banks anyway.

 

[Chucky]

Man I feel sorry for you not in a pity kind of way but just sorry I wish I could do something but I'm in the same boat as you...

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

They never stopped demonstrations and that is a way to force those there do something or even more finance from IMF or EU Bank. Ah why did I need to finish a degree in EU studies, when EU may collapse lol xD. No not really but I dont think monetary union is good... sure there are benefits but if these are the disadvantahes, screw single currency.

 

[Edhel-dur]

They never stopped demonstrations and that is a way to force those there do something or even more finance from IMF or EU Bank. Ah why did I need to finish a degree in EU studies, when EU may collapse lol xD. No not really but I dont think monetary union is good... sure there are benefits but if these are the disadvantahes, screw single currency.

To have the same currency in two countries means to have an equal economic power in both countries. Because otherwise in one country everything might be good, while the other will not be able to sustain the new range of prices and salaries because of the lower economy.

It's not the same as in the US.... in the US their government gives money to the state of Florida for example, then Florida uses the money how they want, and the US government recuperate the money back through taxes.

However in Europe even if the system is similar.... EU currently is way larger then the US so there is much more areas to cover... and what in US are states... in the EU are countries... and what in US are state borderlines... in the EU they are country borderlines which serve no aditional pourpose then to slow down the traffic. Besides if in the US one state goes bankrupt for example, they easily change the leadership over there to what the government needs. But if a country in the EU goes bankrupt... you can't change anything there that easily.

So all in all, Greece will fail as long as the Euro will be there, and the countries with a lesser economy such as Greece, Bulgary, Romania... should never adhere to the Euro.

 

[Sky Green]

To have the same currency in two countries means to have an equal economic power in both countries. Because otherwise in one country everything might be good, while the other will not be able to sustain the new range of prices and salaries because of the lower economy.

It's not the same as in the US.... in the US their government gives money to the state of Florida for example, then Florida uses the money how they want, and the US government recuperate the money back through taxes.

However in Europe even if the system is similar.... EU currently is way larger then the US so there is much more areas to cover... and what in US are states... in the EU are countries... and what in US are state borderlines... in the EU they are country borderlines which serve no aditional pourpose then to slow down the traffic. Besides if in the US one state goes bankrupt for example, they easily change the leadership over there to what the government needs. But if a country in the EU goes bankrupt... you can't change anything there that easily.

So all in all, Greece will fail as long as the Euro will be there, and the countries with a lesser economy such as Greece, Bulgary, Romania... should never adhere to the Euro.

Agreed. But won't The EU help Greece?I know it won't solve all problems but seriously It can't be only cause the use the Euro

 

[Switch33]

Thats also kinda why switzerland's currency is worth a heck of a lot more than the euro currency now.

 

[Urwaldbewohner]

Thats also kinda why switzerland's currency is worth a heck of a lot more than the euro currency now.

your informed wrong here, it just changed from 1euro=1,5franken to 1euro=1,2franken which is worse for swiss economy then any other one

On Topic: Prob whith Greek is not that they got a crisis but that they gave wrong nubers to the EU so everyone thought it's fine till it was to bad to change easily.

 

[UchihaSasuke.gr]

Fact is, things can change in one day. Or they can change in 10 years. Everyday there are some new economy rules and people are being paid less and less. I don't know where this might lead to but I hope it will sometime end.

 

[Edhel-dur]

Fact is, things can change in one day. Or they can change in 10 years. Everyday there are some new economy rules and people are being paid less and less. I don't know where this might lead to but I hope it will sometime end.

But they won't change in one day.

Rebuilding an economy tends to be slower than killing it.

 

[UchihaSasuke.gr]

By saying change I don't mean like " we are out of the crisis " statements. People need to know how long this will last and they also need hope. People used to talk about football or anything else when they went out. Now the only thing they talk about is the crisis.

 

[LordDz]

I heard you guys bought around 200 tanks from USA. Good job, your government managed to fuck themselves up even more than I thought was possible.

 

[Mechanical Man]

It's not they were willing to buy, it's rather a directive. If you don't buy (for NATO countries), you get strict sanctions, probably stricter than current ones.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

To have the same currency in two countries means to have an equal economic power in both countries. Because otherwise in one country everything might be good, while the other will not be able to sustain the new range of prices and salaries because of the lower economy.

Yeah I know what im talking about, the EU monetary union was a subject in my major. But as you also pointed out helping one country in the condition of the same currency would cause problems to another country or vice versa - preventing crisis in another would deepen the crisis in the 1st country - this is a negative effect of a single currency that otherwise would've been solved more properly on their own if not in such monetary union.

I wouldn't say it means equal economy because when the standard remains the same introducing a more expensive currency would only make things worse, which in my country when introduce the euro and the standard of living remains that lower than other EU members, I dont think this is 'equal economy'

 

[Edhel-dur]

Yeah I know what im talking about, the EU monetary union was a subject in my major. But as you also pointed out helping one country in the condition of the same currency would cause problems to another country or vice versa - preventing crisis in another would deepen the crisis in the 1st country - this is a negative effect of a single currency that otherwise would've been solved more properly on their own if not in such monetary union.

I wouldn't say it means equal economy because when the standard remains the same introducing a more expensive currency would only make things worse, which in my country when introduce the euro and the standard of living remains that lower than other EU members, I dont think this is 'equal economy'

That's what I mean.

They shouldn't have introduced Euro in some countries, obviously like Greece. However you can have Euro in both France or Germany, although the German economy is stronger, France's economy is very good too. So you can have the same currency between those two countries. But adding Euro to France, Germany and Romania for example, would be total fail, because Germany and France would have to patch up the problems in Romania, and then for example Romania doesn't give the money back to Germany or France, because it's harder to have control over an entire country (like Romania) then to have control over one state in the US. So then there are even more money losses for the EU.

 

[Mechanical Man]

For first thing I suggest they stop this senseless conflict with Macedonia.

 

[-W3SK3R-]

It's just good news for me what other should i say, your fucked up real bad. You are lazy to work, 3000 euros for janitor well that's to big. And thanks to the VETO we don't even want to be in the EU or NATO sooner or later the EU will collasped.

 

[Mechanical Man]

But I'm sure that everyone is blaming Greece because they were so 'indisciplined' lately, Kosovo, Israel, Libya and other chapters regarding NATO and EU, where they didn't blindly followed the orders of "high-ranked" members of these organizations, so I understand this like some sort of punishment. I don't think that many other countries in EU are faring better, now countries like Slovenia and Slovakia who have much smaller BDP and living standard must now pay for what, greek people won't see this money anyway, it's for french and german, basically paying back the 'big bosses'. It's true that Greece could be more disciplined as in paying taxes regularly and evading taxes not being a national sport, however this may be actually a good thing, a good economy would give others no other means than war to weaken them, like we see libyan scenario.

And for Macedonia I have no fear. So far it isn't under threat from powerful military organizations, so they are free to deal with albanian problem theirselves and Greece can't do shit as any sort of invasion it would be a terrible, terrible mistake.

 

[-W3SK3R-]

Also EU is not on our side, they are saying "Please solved the problem with the name" in other words "Change the name and you will have invitation in EU" As i watched on HR1 on Dnevnik i heard that there might going to have Balkan War 3 between Serbia, Kosovo, Albania,BiH, Macedonia and Ellada. That crise in Gayladda is making lots of problems to the Balkan. I will say don't join in EU they are controlling your life and making it worst!!

 

[Destroyer25]

France should have never let Greece into the EU, and Germany foolishly made no attempt to block France's moves to invite Europe's poor into the EU party house.

I'm not even sure there's any solution to this problem at this point. Every option would likely have disastrous economic consequences for all parties involved. It might just be best to let Turkey annex Greece.

 

[Mechanical Man]

Uhm dude Greece is already 30 years in EU. Back in time there was no sign of any crisis.

And bring the whole Turkey to your home if you love that much. The last thing we need in EU is some backwards country, there are already too much Turks in Germany and they are causing nothing more that trouble. And how do you know their economy is better? It's just because they are not in EU you can't get an insight in their economy.

 

[trolman]

You guys protest too much about everything and constantly block borders and drain EU money.My country is way worse but we're used to it and dont go whinin like some biachi.

 

[Maker]

Message to all Greeks: Please enjoy my money.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

You guys protest too much about everything and constantly block borders and drain EU money.My country is way worse but we're used to it and dont go whinin like some biachi.

This is true, we have it much worse... pansions and even monthly salaries are at lower minimum than Greece. There are other countries like Ireland, Spain, Portugal... what would happen if they started doing the same, EU would crumble lol.

 

[trolman]

Hahaha lol my country is even worse than those! Infact we're worst in europe "yay"!

 

[-W3SK3R-]

If i were i wouldn't going to pay a cent to those lazy Greek arses! Yeah Maker you/parents are working to have for home some money and now some lazy gipsies are going to steall your money. What a "democracy" country of Greece... shame on them.

 

[Pharaoh_]

Speak of our government, not every Greek person, because this thread is becoming too offensive to follow.

 

[Destroyer25]

Uhm dude Greece is already 30 years in EU. Back in time there was no sign of any crisis.

Irrelevant, if the French leaders knew anything about economics they'd see why letting all these small countries into the EU is a bad idea. Whether they were in crisis or not is irrelevant, the whole concept of the EU is flawed. The Europeans just focused on the beneficial aspects and completely ignored the negative ones. It makes sense for France, Germany, Italy, and other countries with decent economies to have the same currency, but it's illogical to let in all these tiny countries.

And bring the whole Turkey to your home if you love that much. The last thing we need in EU is some backwards country, there are already too much Turks in Germany and they are causing nothing more that trouble. And how do you know their economy is better? It's just because they are not in EU you can't get an insight in their economy.

I wasn't suggesting that, I was saying that Turkey might as well annex Greece, so Europe won't have to deal with them, and Turkey get's a piece of their old empire back.



That was just a joke, btw. =P

 

[trolman]

I wasn't suggesting that, I was saying that Turkey might as well annex Greece, so Europe won't have to deal with them, and Turkey get's a piece of their old empire back.
That was just a joke, btw. =P

Yes we love those jokes, here on the balkans. -.-

 

[-W3SK3R-]

Yes real joke dude real joke...!

 

[Mechanical Man]

Irrelevant, if the French leaders knew anything about economics they'd see why letting all these small countries into the EU is a bad idea. Whether they were in crisis or not is irrelevant, the whole concept of the EU is flawed. The Europeans just focused on the beneficial aspects and completely ignored the negative ones. It makes sense for France, Germany, Italy, and other countries with decent economies to have the same currency, but it's illogical to let in all these tiny countries.

You refer Greece to be a tiny country? And if really tiny country wouldn't be causing much trouble, for example Iceland has like 300k people, basically a village. My country has 2 million and still less that some european metropolis. And Greece wasn't in crisis back then, after all tourism was running smoothly.

I wasn't suggesting that, I was saying that Turkey might as well annex Greece, so Europe won't have to deal with them, and Turkey get's a piece of their old empire back.
That was just a joke, btw. =P

I'd rather see nazi Germany back than turkish empire. No, I'm not joking. So you better be quiet about things you don't know. Apparently you are not that history expert as you claim to be...

 

[Destroyer25]

You refer Greece to be a tiny country?

In comparison to France or Germany yes. In terms of size, population, and it's economy.

And if really tiny country wouldn't be causing much trouble, for example Iceland has like 300k people, basically a village. My country has 2 million and still less that some european metropolis.

You're argument makes no sense, look at how much trouble Greece is causing, and they ARE tiny. Iceland too. It's Europe's small countries that are dragging everyone down.

And Greece wasn't in crisis back then, after all tourism was running smoothly.

Did you even read my post? Their economic stability during their admission to the union is irrelevant. The reason why they shouldn't have been admitted is because it just doesn't make sense economically. Without the benefit of hindsight, France should have easily known that when they went on a crusade to open the doors, and Germany should have known better too.

I'd rather see nazi Germany back than turkish empire. No, I'm not joking. So you better be quiet about things you don't know. Apparently you are not that history expert as you claim to be...

I'm well aware of the fact that the Turks ruled the Balkans for several hundred years. Yet if you should hate anyone it should be the EU bureaucrats. The people of the Balkans have fought the Turks to the death for independence, then they try to ethnically cleanse each other, and for what? They have their independence, and now they're just going to hand it over to Europe's unelected commission. It's insanity.

Rule by the Nazis or the Turks just might be better, hell, Nazi Germany and the Ottoman Empire had better economies than the EU has today. And that's saying something, because both of them had really bad economies.

I'll take a despotic regime over the clusterfuck of bureaucratic inefficiency and gross economic incompetence that is the EU any day.

All IMO of course. *Grins*

 

[Destroyer25]

Here's a post off another forum I'm on, if you're having trouble understand the political aspects of the situation, I'm sure this will be very enlightening.

In school we are taught there are two conflicting responsibilities of democratically elected representatives. One role is that of the delegate, who is supposed to act in the ways in which his constituents want him to act. The other role is that of the trustee, where he is supposed to act in the best interest of his constituents even if they do not agree with what he does. The reason for the trustee role is that the public is often ignorant of the complex issues facing government and must rely on their representatives to gather expertise so they can make informed an intelligent decisions for the voters who cannot possibly possess all the necessary expertise to intelligently form a policy position.

Both concepts make sense, but both are at odds with each other. The average Greek probably knows little or nothing about global finance and economics so can be expected to support concepts and ideas that may sound good but are detrimental to the nation (The Greeks aren't the only ones guilty of this. They have just gone to an extreme). So one would hope that more knowledgeable and informed people would make those decisions.

On the other hand, the representative is supposed to pay attention to what his constituents want. This is a fundamental principle of democracy. Unfortunately when they do this too literally it often leads to populist policies that are very deleterious. And yet democracy needs to be based on what the people give their representatives power to do.

The problem with the EU is that some decisions are being made in very undemocratic ways in the name of the trustee theory, and these are at odds with the accountability of the delegate theory. Therefore it is too easy for a Greek to blame a far away German or French for his problems because so much decision making is done by people that he thinks are not accountable to him. In this way, he will never be in a position to see the errors of his own ways because he will always have a convenient scapegoat to blame. He will always be able to say that things were great until those people far away messed them up, even though this isn't true. That is why democracy needs to be local and policy decentralized. When it is local and decentralized the voters at least have a chance of seeing that they may have voted for the wrong guy and have supported bad policy ideas. This will never happen when the decision takers are remote from the electors.

The problem in Europe is that they seem to like centralized authority and are trying to make it more and more so and this is causing problems of understanding on the fringe.

 

[EloTheMan]

That quote is pretty accurate Destroyer25, but to solve it is going to need more than the Greeks trust to solve it and if it weren't for the Euro they could have solved this crisis by now with the currency strategy.

Right now their economy is pretty much based on tourism and agriculture, while they have (had*) the social standards of an industrial country. If you compare it to other countries with the same economic income type their social standards are much much lower then Greece.

Its only logical that they have to lower their standards to match the global market, and the best way to do so would be by having their own currency which they can drop when it goes bad (which gives more tourism for the time being = more income) and raise when it goes good.

Drastic measure is the best solution in our economic system, not to glorify Hitler but he did solve an even greater crisis than Greece's in a few years. Japan had a very bad situation to after WW2 and they worked through it even thou there were no manpower, educated people or money left. Today they are both a economic power in the world. (However Germany got a lot of help after the war from U.S., UK and France to rebuild their country I believe)

So, in my opinion currency control is maybe the best step for fixing the Greek crisis to begin with. It will not solve things over night but it will increase their tourism income and their concurrency in Europe for investments in the country. And help keeping the Euro from falling apart.

 

[Destroyer25]

That quote is pretty accurate Destroyer25, but to solve it is going to need more than the Greeks trust to solve it and if it weren't for the Euro they could have solved this crisis by now with the currency strategy.

No doubt about that. The European Union is a socioeconomic basket case and one of the worst political, social and economic experiments in the history of mankind.

Drastic measures are needed to fix Greece's economy, drastic measures that are not only very hard to implement due to the nature of the EU, but drastic measures that EU politicians lack the intelligence to comprehend.

Right now their economy is pretty much based on tourism and agriculture, while they have (had*) the social standards of an industrial country. If you compare it to other countries with the same economic income type their social standards are much much lower then Greece.

You forgot shipping, but yes, the amount of social services Greeks have in relation to the size of their economy is ridiculous. Even if they paid lots of taxes, and they pay NONE, it would be unsustainable.

Its only logical that they have to lower their standards to match the global market, and the best way to do so would be by having their own currency which they can drop when it goes bad (which gives more tourism for the time being = more income) and raise when it goes good.

Yep. Greeks are going to give up pretty much everything if they want this to work. They can't cry like little pampered bitches, they just have to give it up. If they don't give up pretty much all their services bar the non essential ones then their recovery could easily fail, and they'll end up in a worse situation. It's all or nothing.

They oughta remember their brave ancestors who fought and died, with such passion, to protect their countrymen and their way of life. Where is the military genius of the Athenians? The skill and the dedication of the Spartans? Where is the bravery of those who stood up against the Persians, then the Nazis and Facists, and worst of all, the Communists? Those are the Greeks that need to be remembered. Sadly, the current generation are nothing more than pampered little bitches, who think they are entitled to everything and shouldn't have to spend a dime or work hard at all. Greece is the ultimate example of the European nannystate.

But back to the economics...

They are in this mess because they adopted a currency that was worth far more than the economic activity in their country. The Euro represents the economic strength of Germany, France and Italy. Them and them ONLY, should be using it. All other countries using it should NOT, as their economies aren't worth the value of the Euro.

A country's currency directly based off your country's economic strength. Thus, Greece needs to readopt the Drachma. A low value currency is good for tourism, as foreigners with higher value currency have more purchasing power. It also might be a good idea to focus more on exports, which also favors a low value currency, as you get paid in foreign currency.

Drastic measure is the best solution in our economic system, not to glorify Hitler but he did solve an even greater crisis than Greece's in a few years. Japan had a very bad situation to after WW2 and they worked through it even thou there were no manpower, educated people or money left. Today they are both a economic power in the world. (However Germany got a lot of help after the war from U.S., UK and France to rebuild their country I believe)

Hitler actually didn't fix the German economy. It was burning out by 1938. It was literally sustained through pillaging the rest of Europe. Granted, Hitler could have turned Germany into a very strong peace time economy, but the initial rearmament was burning out the economy. The same was seen with the USSR, by 1944 it was exhausted, and by 1947 Russians were starving to death en mass again.

With regard to Germany and Japan, USA is responsible for a great deal of their success. USA wanted them as allies, and thus wanted them to be strong. That was particularly true of Germany

Drastic measures are of course necessary though. Greece needs to adopt Austrian style Free Market Capitalism, they can't afford any extra social services. They threaten to cripple economic recovery. Once the economy is fixed they can adopt something along the lines of Canadian Social Market Capitalism, but NEVER AGAIN, can they move left of center and head towards Social Democracy, or the borderline Socialism that they are basically right now.

So, in my opinion currency control is maybe the best step for fixing the Greek crisis to begin with. It will not solve things over night but it will increase their tourism income and their concurrency in Europe for investments in the country. And help keeping the Euro from falling apart.

I agree, they need to drop the Euro, and adopt the Drachma. Keep it low, like 20% of the USD maybe.

I'm not an expert in currencies, and I haven't done too much reading on the subject so I can't comment on the finer details of how this should be done (There's a huge amount of risk involved in such measures), but I'm sure there's at least a few people with brains in Greece that can figure it out. If not perhaps Ron Paul would like to lead Greece, as his fellow Americans don't see to care for his Libertarian ideas much. At least he has a decent grasp on economics though.

 

[EloTheMan]

You forgot shipping, but yes, the amount of social services Greeks have in relation to the size of their economy is ridiculous. Even if they paid lots of taxes, and they pay NONE, it would be unsustainable.

LOL how could I forget that when I am in the same business @.@

I also forgot to mention their ridiculous high military expenses but it has already been mentioned in the thread. But still, they are not in any war or a threatened by any, why do they keep holding on to it?

Also their new leader is not even considering the fact to dump their military or to change currency.

He fears that the Greek households will suffer to much if they change currency, I believe they will survive it if they manage to increase the income of the country. Greece can't afford to go on short-term solutions, long-term is the only answer.

P.S. I believe Finland is a considerable part of the Euro to, they are both industrial and got natural resources.

EDIT: I forgot this to: To you guys who live in Greece I suggest you just find ways to cut down your expenditure for the time like buying groceries 2 times per month or getting room mates to save some rent money, this crisis will not be solved for another 5-20 years depending on what your politics do.

 

[Destroyer25]

I also forgot to mention their ridiculous high military expenses but it has already been mentioned in the thread. But still, they are not in any war or a threatened by any, why do they keep holding on to it?

They have been in an arms race with the Turks since WWII. They don't want a replay of Cyprus 1974.

Also their new leader is not even considering the fact to dump their military or to change currency.

He fears that the Greek households will suffer to much if they change currency, I believe they will survive it if they manage to increase the income of the country. Greece can't afford to go on short-term solutions, long-term is the only answer.

Obviously Greek households will suffer, there's a lot of risk involved in this plan and even if it works there will be blood, and a lot of it. These are necessary measures though. You're right about them needing a long term solution. They need to restructure their economy from the ground up.

P.S. I believe Finland is a considerable part of the Euro to, they are both industrial and got natural resources.

Not really. Finland is only 1/10 of Italy's GDP. They are he 13th largest economy in the EU and represent 1.5% of it's total GDP.

EDIT: I forgot this to: To you guys who live in Greece I suggest you just find ways to cut down your expenditure for the time like buying groceries 2 times per month or getting room mates to save some rent money, this crisis will not be solved for another 5-20 years depending on what your politics do.

Do we have any Greek members on Hive, ones that actually live there that is?

 

[EloTheMan]

They have been in an arms race with the Turks since WWII. They don't want a replay of Cyprus 1974

What are the chances of an invasion from Turkey? FN wouldn't allow it so they would get NATO up their asses before they have even entered Greece territory

Not really. Finland is only 1/10 of Italy's GDP. They are he 13th largest economy in the EU and represent 1.5% of it's total GDP.

Small or not, they have a strong economy that can keep up with the Euro. At least last time I checked

UchihaSasuke.gr is from Greece.

 

[Destroyer25]

What are the chances of an invasion from Turkey? FN wouldn't allow it so they would get NATO up their asses before they have even entered Greece territory.

Greece and Turkey still have a very tense relationship. Neither countries are going to rely on NATO to ensure that conflict won't break out. Both of them are always sending fighters into each other's airspace.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

So I've completed a university degree in EU studies and basically the whole subject is brainwashing you that EU is a good thing, however I have my personal opinion away from any program or agenda or conversion, call it as you like.

And my opinion matches with what I studied - that EU is a good thing but it is different from European Monetary Union which has its pros and cons.. however I do not think EMU is such a good idea and it is != EU that allows you for example to travel freely as an EU citizen plus other electing etc benefits.

The invention of euro is also not a bad thing but I'm not sure the mandatory membership in EMU if you match the Maastricht criteria is good, well.. so far it doesn't seem so.

Greece, now Italy, Spain and Portugal also have problems, and Ireland, The EU will live and the EMU will live, politicans will just change things to make it live.. so no worries about it, it will be got over with eventually.. It's not the end of the world, and im not being optimistic. I just feel indifferent about EU and all we've been taught.

 

[Destroyer25]

So I've completed a university degree in EU studies and basically the whole subject is brainwashing you that EU is a good thing, however I have my personal opinion away from any program or agenda or conversion, call it as you like.

And my opinion matches with what I studied - that EU is a good thing but it is different from European Monetary Union which has its pros and cons.. however I do not think EMU is such a good idea and it is != EU that allows you for example to travel freely as an EU citizen plus other electing etc benefits.

The invention of euro is also not a bad thing but I'm not sure the mandatory membership in EMU if you match the Maastricht criteria is good, well.. so far it doesn't seem so.

Greece, now Italy, Spain and Portugal also have problems, and Ireland, The EU will live and the EMU will live, politicans will just change things to make it live.. so no worries about it, it will be got over with eventually.. It's not the end of the world, and im not being optimistic. I just feel indifferent about EU and all we've been taught.

There's no doubt that the EU has benefits. But whether they have benefits or not is irrelevant, what matters is whether those benefits outweigh the consequences. Economically, there are just consequences. The economic benefits are very few. Economically the Eurozone only makes sense if it is comprised of strong economies of similar GDP. IMO Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands should be the only countries part of the economic union. You should need at least 500 000 Million GDP PPP to be apart of it.

Had the Eurozone been organized like that from day one there wouldn't be a huge issue right now, as you wouldn't have all these small countries dragging the EU down. Obviously the aforementioned countries would still be in big trouble due to their moronic Social Democratic socioeconomic policies, but they wouldn't be in as much trouble.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

I'd have to agree here. Invite some other South-East European countries and see what happens, this union aint gonna live long xD Indeed it would be more stable with only economically better countries but see Italy is one of the founders and no one expected them to go into the same. If this crisis continues, the 'leaving the EU' may not sound that impossible for countries.

I am personally against Turkey in EU, not because I've against them (MUCH) except I dislike Turkish citizens registering as if living here to just vote for Turkish oriented parties when this is illegal to vote like that) but because it starts losing the feel of 'European countries'. However, Turkey would have more stable economy than some other countries currently. Seems they can even handle an earthquake by themselves, not asking for help explicitly. If something happened here in my country, oh gawd, the damage would be unfixable.

And when some guy said we're Russia's property, no we are not. We are US property. We are turning into a US base close to Russia *cough looks to me like Cold War 2 cough*, I dont mind it as im pro-American oriented, as long as this doesn't have negative effect. Problem is now with a plan of American Corp to put some gas pipes beneath the earth geologists here are saying may cause '(small?/big?) earthquakes' which is why I'm saying if it happened here.

Fck this planet, take it over, if anyone's outside it, im getting out of it.

 

[Destroyer25]

I'd have to agree here. Invite some other South-East European countries and see what happens, this union aint gonna live long xD Indeed it would be more stable with only economically better countries but see Italy is one of the founders and no one expected them to go into the same. If this crisis continues, the 'leaving the EU' may not sound that impossible for countries.

Even Germany is in trouble, and they are the strongest economy in the EU.

I am personally against Turkey in EU, not because I've against them (MUCH) except I dislike Turkish citizens registering as if living here to just vote for Turkish oriented parties when this is illegal to vote like that) but because it starts losing the feel of 'European countries'. However, Turkey would have more stable economy than some other countries currently. Seems they can even handle an earthquake by themselves, not asking for help explicitly. If something happened here in my country, oh gawd, the damage would be unfixable.

Personally I don't know why they would want to be part of a huge failure like the EU. I'm worried about Turkey becoming more radicalized though. There are too many evil Islamists in positions of power. We need to ensure Turkey stays secular and liberalized. Deport all the Islamists to Saudi Barbaria if they want to live in the stone age.

And when some guy said we're Russia's property, no we are not. We are US property. We are turning into a US base close to Russia *cough looks to me like Cold War 2 cough*, I dont mind it as im pro-American oriented, as long as this doesn't have negative effect.

Russia would very much like to own Europe. Putin and Medvedev arr trying to take it over with political maneuvering and economic warfare. Europe really isn't USA's property either though. Many Europeans are very anti American, yet the QQ like bitches when Russia starts getting belligerent. I really hate Europeans that talk shit about USA. USA saved their asses from Nazis, Fascism and Communism and they single handedly rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan. Europeans are forever in debt to USA IMO.

It does look like a second Cold War though. All of Russia's leaders still have that mentality. They have a mountain of domestic issues at home and they are busy plotting the economic subjugation of Europe. USA puts up some missile shields, completely defense in nature and the USSR loses their shit. They act as if it's a threat to them when the ABMs are hardly going to neutralize the effectiveness of Russia's ICBMs, IRBMs and MRBMs.

Problem is now with a plan of American Corp to put some gas pipes beneath the earth geologists here are saying may cause '(small?/big?) earthquakes' which is why I'm saying if it happened here.

I suspect you're referring to the recent discussion on Europe's potential shale-gas industry. I recently heard about this, there was an article on it in The Economist.

Here's the same article online.

Shale gas

Frack on

People should worry less about fracking, and more about carbon

Nov 26th 2011 | from the print edition

AT A recent shindig in London of the shale-gas industry, energy firms gave a rosy view of the fuel’s prospects in Europe. Like America, Europe has vast beds of shale rock, in which innumerable bubbles of natural gas are trapped. By cannoning water, sand and chemicals at them, a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, the bubbles can be released. This, the firms said, could bring Europe the same bonanza of cheap gas and new jobs in the industry that America is now enjoying (see article). It would also lessen Europe’s irksome dependence on Russian gas.

Outside the venue, meanwhile, protesters chanted, “Flaming water from our tap, we don’t want this fracking crap.” They referred to fears that fracking can cause contamination of aquifers by the methane and naturally occurring radioactive material it displaces, or by the chemicals it uses. Another worry is that fracking may cause earthquakes. A recent British study suggested that 50 tiny quakes in Lancashire were the result of fracking nearby.

http://www.economist.com/node/21540275

Now I haven't heard about any American companies that are planning on opening operations in Europe. This sounds dubious to me as Europeans are much more concerned about the environment, even though the claim that this is inherently dangerous is completely fallacious. So keeping that in mind I hope European leaders will ignore the idiotic QQing from the Enviromarxists, and develop this industry.

In tough times like this, the environment doesn't matter, plain and simple. It just doesn't. Millions of people are unemployed, debts are soaring, and we're debating over some f***ing trees? It's insanity. Is Europe seriously considering passing up an opportunity to create a whole new industry, that would span the entire continent, create tens of thousands of jobs, bring billions in economic activity and most importantly, both eliminate their dependency on Russian gas, and lower the global cost of gas, thus hurting the Russian economy?

This is win, win, win, win, win. It will rejuvenate the dieing European economy and give a blow to Russia's, significantly shifting the geopolitical situation in Europe and the world. I just pointed out that Russia is trying to make Europe their bitch via economic warfare. Russia can literally destroy Europe by turning off the gas pipeline in the winter, now Europe can strengthen their economy and get back at Russia for their sinister efforts.

Europe can't make the same mistake Obama is. He's destroying the US economy by blocking attempts to build oil pipelines from Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries, and investing hundreds of millions in failing green energy companies. They gave $528 million to a failing company, Solyndra, and it still went bankrupt. It's criminal.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Yes but Soviets finished half the job during WW2... I'm not going to argue who did more but Russia did at least half of it. USA has this strategy to make the wars always away from home, so that makes them economically strong that's why they are the creditor for decades. Although things are not getting good there either, lately. Also I will disagree if someone thinks that every war USA gets involved with is justified... though this is not my concern.

Also I don't rely very much on politically manipulated articles, there is always 'behind the curtain' for everything. Yes, the shale gas system, afair it was offered here by an American company, that doesn't matter who offers it, my point is, there could be some ecological consequences. Debts are soaring cause when all the money of the US are going to BLACK PROJECTS/grey economy of any kind and WARS they will be... and some American citizens will tell you the same

The CO2 pollution I think is a little bit exaggerated, it is hardly the main reason for holes in the ozone as most of it is a natural changing process of the Earth, even if they have some contribution. While so, I care about this planet's future as a planet, so I do not agree with the *fck trees industrialize all*

If not the trees our lives would be shortened with years, cause you don't see what's going on inside your body, trees are filter to all the pollutants and I'm strongly against deforestation and building hotels and shit while 'eating' frm the mountain's forests for example...

This with the gas, it is better than depending on Russia but caring less about environment is just wrong. Exactly the attude of 'make economy, care less about environment' makes me think some huge natural disaster really needs to happen to make people give a care about this planet... yes unemployment is big, not because you need to destroy nature to get work places, you need to replace those who make the situation so, on the high political positions. But it is human nature, one will always do dirty things to get money out of it, so no matter who is placed there, situation won't change.

 

[Destroyer25]

Yes but Soviets finished half the job during WW2... I'm not going to argue who did more but Russia did at least half of it. USA has this strategy to make the wars always away from home, so that makes them economically strong that's why they are the creditor for decades. Although things are not getting good there either, lately. Also I will disagree if someone thinks that every war USA gets involved with is justified... though this is not my concern.

All that matters is that the allies would not have won without USA. That doesn't mean that Germany will necessarily win. Best case scenario for them is the crush the USSR by 1944, worst case scenario there's a stalemate on the East Front around the same time.

Also I don't rely very much on politically manipulated articles, there is always 'behind the curtain' for everything.

Are you insulting the Economist? Their concern is whether something makes economic sense, not whether it fits with anyone's political agendas.

Yes, the shale gas system, afair it was offered here by an American company, that doesn't matter who offers it, my point is, there could be some ecological consequences.

Yes and tomorrow you could be shot by a crazy serial killer. Doesn't mean that it's probable. There is very little hard evidence that proves that it's inherently dangeous, and even if it was. I could care less. Jobs are more important than trees. What's the point of parks if nobody is around to enjoy them because we've all starved to death because our politicians don't care about the economy?

Debts are soaring cause when all the money of the US are going to BLACK PROJECTS/grey economy of any kind and WARS they will be... and some American citizens will tell you the same

USA is actually reducing the defense budget, and US tax dollars are actually going to failing Green Energy companies, as I just pointed out.

The CO2 pollution I think is a little bit exaggerated, it is hardly the main reason for holes in the ozone as most of it is a natural changing process of the Earth, even if they have some contribution. While so, I care about this planet's future as a planet, so I do not agree with the *fck trees industrialize all*

If not the trees our lives would be shortened with years, cause you don't see what's going on inside your body, trees are filter to all the pollutants and I'm strongly against deforestation and building hotels and shit while 'eating' frm the mountain's forests for example...

I don't agree with destroying the environment either, but the economy is inherently more important and always will be. Enviromarxists are destroying the global economy.

This with the gas, it is better than depending on Russia but caring less about environment is just wrong. Exactly the attude of 'make economy, care less about environment' makes me think some huge natural disaster really needs to happen to make people give a care about this planet... yes unemployment is big, not because you need to destroy nature to get work places, you need to replace those who make the situation so, on the high political positions. But it is human nature, one will always do dirty things to get money out of it, so no matter who is placed there, situation won't change.

People do care about the planet, the issue is people just see hordes of Enviromarxists destroying our economy because they think trees are more important. We definitely need to protect the environment, but it shouldn't prevent economic development. Especially when most of the things we are proposing aren't even that dangerous, the Enviromarxists just like to pretend it is.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Yes even The Economist could be sharing a political view or interest, even it can be dictated what to write. Same as history - history is written in terms of the ruling party, the way brainwashing population with it appeals to them (example: not mention the murders done during communist period, presenting only the good side of communism during those times before '89). I'm not trusting any media when it comes to 'how good/important' something is, it's all a bag of money there, pay X to write article Z

Cutting down some trees won't provide jobs lol, it will however, reduce the clean air that you forget..is green squares that make you breathe a little cleaner air. What needs a change is the system or the politicians. I don't know why you think expanding on behalf of nature would solve people's problems, if someone has interest to keep the system like that, it wont change, cause it always comes down to the ruling class.

Sorry for OT but any can continue with the thread topic. Just saying..

 

[Destroyer25]

Yes even The Economist could be sharing a political view or interest, even it can be dictated what to write. Same as history - history is written in terms of the ruling party, the way brainwashing population with it appeals to them (example: not mention the murders done during communist period, presenting only the good side of communism during those times before '89). I'm not trusting any media when it comes to 'how good/important' something is, it's all a bag of money there, pay X to write article Z

Obviously there is an inherent bias with media. Although most would probably agree that Al Jazeera and the Economist are extremely unbiased. You can't just ignore media because of that though. They provide a valuable service in our world. While even Western media may be biased, intelligent people have the capability to dissect that bias. So their bias really isn't that big of a problem.

Cutting down some trees won't provide jobs lol, it will however, reduce the clean air that you forget..is green squares that make you breathe a little cleaner air.

Actually it does, there's a huge industry surrounding it, logging. Without it, you would not have a house, or desk, or a chair. That's beside the point though. My argument was that the fact that a few trees might need to cut down to make way for a pipeline, or the development of Europe's gas industry should not be a barricade to these economic activities. That kind of mentality will bring us into a second recession and destroy the global economy.