The Pitters' Place

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33403665

Well, they've rejected the bailout offer by quite a large margin... I can't see how this can end any other way now other than them coming out of the Euro and probably the EU. Followed probably by them becoming an economic basket case for the next 10 to 15 years and having it even worse than they're having it under the terms of the proposed austerity measures.

This is why I kinda dislike democracy. People vote for populist policies that sound good in the short term with little to no understanding of what they actually mean or what the real impact of them will be.

It all makes me kinda sad.

What do you mean? This is perfect!!

Whenever someone mentions the austrian school of economics, you can now just point to Greece.

I have absolutely no clue what's going on in Greece. Like, at all. If someone could explain to me or point me to a reliable source which explains things, I'd be thankful.

It's pretty much the same as the Lehman disaster in the U.S. I think they might even have to do with it.
But basically Greece spent EU money that couldn't give back. So things were pretty good during the spending time, but then when the money runs out the whole economy breaks.

Derived Absurdity wrote:I have absolutely no clue what's going on in Greece. Like, at all. If someone could explain to me or point me to a reliable source which explains things, I'd be thankful.

A whole bunch of European countries joined the single currency (the Euro) a while back. To make them eligible to join they had to prove that they had stable economies, sensible policies, etc - essentially northern European countries like Germany or Sweden. But the politicians were keen to get as many EU countries as possible into it, so they fiddled the figures massively and ended up admitting countries that really shouldn't have been admitted like Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland.

Now whilst the global economy was booming this wasn't a problem. And it also meant that all the Eurozone countries (the countries that had adopted the Euro) had access to the same really cheap lending that the likes of Germany normally gets because they're kinda linked now. So they went mad and borrowed lots and lots of money.

This, in itself wouldn't necessarily have been a problem if they'd been borrowing the money to invest in projects that would benefit the economy and the like, but being the sort of countries they were, they generally frittered away the money on short term populist things that helped the politicians get re-elected, but didn't actually do much for the country. All the time increasing their levels of debt.

And then the recession hit.

And people realised that they couldn't actually afford to pay back all the money they'd borrowed. And they realised that lending to Greece or Spain wasn't as safe as lending to Sweden. So they initially starting raising the cost of the lending and they decided that they just didn't want to lend to them at all.

That's when the countries had to go to the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the ECB (European Central Bank) and the EC (European Commission) and ask for a bailout to prevent their countries going bust. The IMF, ECB and EC are referred to as the Troika.

The Troika said "okay, but only if you agree to a whole bunch of austerity measures to try to make you economy add up because as it stands your books will never balance".

Greece's debts are by far the worse, and as such it needs the biggest bailout and in turn it has the most austerity. It recently had an election and elected a very left wing leader on the promise of "no more austerity". He went and spoke to the troika and told them that he wanted to renegotiate the deal - he still wanted money, but he didn't want to have to implement austerity (which doesn't add up). They said no.

He called a referendum in Greece asking if people wanted to accept the austerity terms that the troika want to impose. They've just voted no.

(I think that pretty much sums it up without missing anything too important!)

Oh thank God for you because I am entirely too stupid and you have explained it in a way that did not give me a headache.

Thanks for that outline. The situation seems pretty shitty.

Are you largely sympathetic to the Troika? Could you expand on why if you are?

This is what happens when fake countries are treated like real countries. This is why no sensible person gives a sh!t about Central America.

Oooh STFU your whole fucking country is a joke. You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration. I wouldn't be so fucking proud of that shit.

Yes, yes, American agriculture would be doomed if it weren't for illegal immigrants. Of course.

Stop giving them jobs and see what happens. People don't just jump over the border because no one wants them over there.

Also stop being patronizing and trying to ridicule me. You are acting as if I don't know your people didn't shit over here every day.

The fact that a very limited segment of American agriculture hires illegals because it is cheaper does not in anyway support the claim the U.S. can't maintain its agriculture without illegal aliens. There's a lot more to American agriculture than vegetable farms in the southern parts of four states.

Oooh I somehow feel better now. I'm going to say this in the nicest way I can. Stop dragoning.

Concession noted.

Derived Absurdity wrote:Are you largely sympathetic to the Troika? Could you expand on why if you are?

I suppose I am. For two reasons.

1. If you accumulate debt then you should make every effort to repay it. That's as true for individuals as it is for countries. And when you accrue that debt irresponsibly it gets my hackles up a little more - I'd be more sympathetic to people that end up in debt through poor luck or events outside their control. Greece is not in that position - for example, they fail to collect taxes from their own citizens (they have more registered Porsche owners in the country than higher rate tax payers), they let huge proportions of their population retire at 55 when everyone else in the world is increasing retirement ages, and the plug the gap in the budget with borrowed money. This is not going to get better.

2. Other Eurozone countries are in similar positions. If Greece gets to write off it's debts then why shouldn't Spain or Ireland or Latvia (etc)? Who picks up the tab for all these countries?

There are other reasons, but those are the main two...

CashRules wrote:Concession noted.

Yeah... just because the southern farms can't maintain its crops without illegal aliens, in no way means that your agriculture relies on illegal aliens to maintain the vegetable and fruit industry. Riiiiiight.

Also just because there's a demand on jobs for illegal workers, doesn't mean there's a whole structural problem that relies on illegal help to keep businesses working. There are no jobs for illegal workers in the U.S, not sure why people keep risking their lives for a shit pay when there's no one there to give them said shit pay. How silly of me. Illegals must be going there to visit Disneyland!

To be honest I think rejecting the bail-out was the best thing for them. The repayment terms outlined involve their economy growing over the next few years at a fast rate than it ever has. This is supposed to happen while economy-shrinking austerity is being imposed on them?

Making an informed decision to leave the Euro, declare bankruptcy and start again with the Drachma is one thing. There are arguments for and against it. But that's not really what they're doing. They're just rejecting the austerity and whining like petulant children that everyone else should give them lots of money because they want lots of money, and that's not how grown ups do it.

The European economy has turned a corner and as it does so the Greek economy should see some of that benefit too to one extent or another. But if their economic model during the boom years didn't add up and relied on heavy borrowing to make it add up then they have to fix that before any solution is going to work. And to fix that means cutting back on excessive public spending - aka "austerity".

They're not asking for lots of money, they're asking for a workable solution. The one tabled by the troika at the moment is not workable. Their economy has shrunk 25% as a result of the austerity measures already imposed. If the rest of the EU want the Greeks to stay in the Eurozone then they need to bite the bullet and come up with a real plan, which will involve some debt-relief as well as debt-restructuring. The Greeks are well aware that their economic model during the boom years was a complete fantasy, but expecting the current policy to result in economic miracles is no less so.

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:

Derived Absurdity wrote:Are you largely sympathetic to the Troika? Could you expand on why if you are?

I suppose I am. For two reasons.

1. If you accumulate debt then you should make every effort to repay it. That's as true for individuals as it is for countries. And when you accrue that debt irresponsibly it gets my hackles up a little more - I'd be more sympathetic to people that end up in debt through poor luck or events outside their control. Greece is not in that position - for example, they fail to collect taxes from their own citizens (they have more registered Porsche owners in the country than higher rate tax payers), they let huge proportions of their population retire at 55 when everyone else in the world is increasing retirement ages, and the plug the gap in the budget with borrowed money. This is not going to get better.

2. Other Eurozone countries are in similar positions. If Greece gets to write off it's debts then why shouldn't Spain or Ireland or Latvia (etc)? Who picks up the tab for all these countries?

There are other reasons, but those are the main two...

Excellent points, with which I agree.
And also good outline of the situation in your first post. Good job!

There's very little real difference to going bust and getting creditors to write off a portion of the debt - they both have the same effect.

Nobody will want to lend to a country where the last people that lend to them didn't get all their money back, so either way they will be unable to borrow more money. And if you can't borrow more money you need to have an economy where the books balance and to make the books balance you need to reduce your spending and successfully collect taxes (neither of which the Greek government seem able or willing to do).

Which either dooms Greece to failure or to permanent dependency on the Troika. (At least if they've gone back to the Drachma they can print money!)

They will also have broken the rules of the Eurozone and the Euro making it very difficult for them stay in the Euro. (In fact, they've technically already broken the rules of the Eurozone because they are restricting peoples' access to their own money, but that's a much smaller issue.)

So the only way for them to stay in the Euro in either eventuality would be for the controlling powers of the Eurozone to effectively throw out the existing rules and create a new set. And they're not going to do that because it would have huge ramifications across the rest of the Eurozone.

Or... if Greece really is desperate to stay in the Euro it can agree to pay its debts. It may want to pay them over a longer period and may want more help. But it can't have it both ways - it can't stay in the Euro and write off some (or all) of its debt.

I'm sure when someone is "dragoning" it's an awesome thing especially since it was used in regards to Pig Farmers comments which makes such actions even better than awesome.

Sure. Because disregarding oppression is such an awesome thing.
I have no idea why people feel so offended and frustrated about it. It's fun! Especially when you are the one being the oppressor. Haha! So funny!

What should we call 'Liszting'?

From Popbitch:

The clearest bit of post-referendum political analysis to come out of Greece arrived via BuzzFeed this week.

Yes-voter Costis Zombanakis, ("Harvard-educated millionaire businessman and basketball impresario") explained the critical tactical flaw in the Yes campaign as follows:

"The No side had a simple message. They said 'The Germans are cunts and [former prime minister] Samaras is a cunt'."

"You're not going to win by talking about liberal European values when No's message is that the Germans are cunts."

Something, perhaps, for those arranging UK's Euro referendum to think about.

Well, good thing no one is disregarding oppression in this thread.

Denying the ridiculous, simplistic, "don't bother me with facts I'll believe whatever stupid bullshit I want to believe" nonsense claim that American agriculture would fail without illegal immigrants = denying the existence of oppression. Now we know.

Still missed the point your stupid country relies on oppression to sustain itself even inside their own borders.

Put the goalposts back where you found them please.

i don't know what goalposts are.

It means stop changing your claim in the middle of the discussion. Moving the goalposts in football = cheating. It's a logical fallacy used because the person got caught not being able to support their actual claim so they change what they said and pretend the new claim is what they meant all along so they can try to make the opponent feel as though they then have to defend themselves against something they never said or even implied; in other words: that transparently dishonest stunt you just pulled.

I don't know fake football.

Sure, just because agriculture wouldn't literally fail without illegal immigration doesn't mean it doesn't rely on it. There are 11 million immigrants over there filling up your undesirable jobs. The U.S instead of stopping that and allowing mechanization or just letting businesses fail, are looking for ways around to take advantage of this cheap labor.

In this one thread you have literally gone from:

You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration.

to:

the southern farms can't maintain its crops without illegal aliens

and then to:

agriculture wouldn't literally fail without illegal immigration doesn't mean it doesn't rely on it.

There's no arguing with that level of intentional dishonesty and simplistic thinking. You were wrong, Ada, and instead of just admitting you were wrong you chose the unethical approach of changing your claim TWICE and trying to pretend I was arguing points that had nothing to do with anything I said. But it was cute how you took an uncalled for swipe at Dragon before she had even posted on the thread. Classy.

It's the same argument. Besides if you don't think the farm industry relies on illegals I don't know where you are living.
And the only mistake I made was confusing Agriculture with the Farming Industry. I still don't know the difference between Farming Industry with Agriculture, I only know they both panicked when immigration laws resulted in the loss of crops.

I still maintain myself that the U.S relies on illegals. Might not mean it strictly relies on illegals, but as it is today, it does. The fact that they won't fix the problem but look around solutions that will only open to more oppression tells us, you can't do anything without oppressing. That's what I meant with you can't sustain your agriculture without illegals.

And if you don't know, the fact that 11 million people are over there filling your jobs with no rights, IS oppression.

If Bernie Sanders is elected to POTUS things will change in the US. Maybe not quickly but that man has more gumption than every single GOP elected official put together and will run roughshod over any opposition by using his intelligence and his infectious love for humanity.

The US has a crappy history and a crappy recent past, no denying that...especially no one on this thread. But I'm happy to say that some things are changing. The SCOTUS ruling on marriage is a huge victory for this country. And even though the whole Confederate flag issue is a drop in the ocean of oppression the US has created, it's still a stepping stone to educating the US nation on how bad we suck.

So while I hate US foreign policy the citizens of the US have to be educated on the countries massive internal issues before we can even begin to fix the harm done to others. I mean...even the most knowledgeable citizens would agree with that. Can't really fix all the legs we broke throughout our history unless we fix our own broken fingers, hands, and arms. (<I like this analogy and am coining it, if anyone uses it ever you are to pay me 1000usd dollars)

On a personal note, I've read a lot about the tragedy that is happening in Greece and it really sucks. I cannot even imagine the fear it's citizens must feel to have no access to money or supplies. I'm pretty sure my watching The Walking Dead, The 100, and now Revolution has put feelings and emotions inside me that I may not have been able to feel before and I may be overreacting to all the death and destruction in this world but I'd rather overreact then not react at all.

And interestingly enough...I'm not the only one it seems. A group of university students decided to research the affect such post apocalyptic shows have on people considering we are surrounded by such shows much more now than before and their findings is that such shows no matter how crazy make people put themselves in such a world and try to decide how they'd survive it and that creates more empathy for real life issues going on.

Dr_Liszt wrote:It's the same argument.

Are you on drugs? I just quoted you saying three entirely different things and you claim it's the same argument. What is wrong with you?

Besides if you don't think the farm industry relies on illegals I don't know where you are living.

Show where I said any such thing.

And the only mistake I made was confusing Agriculture with the Farming Industry. I still don't know the difference between Farming Industry with Agriculture, I only know they both panicked when immigration laws resulted in the loss of crops.

This is a genuine WTF moment.

I still maintain myself that the U.S relies on illegals. Might not mean it strictly relies on illegals, but as it is today, it does. The fact that they won't fix the problem but look around solutions that will only open to more oppression tells us, you can't do anything without oppressing. That's what I meant with you can't sustain your agriculture without illegals.

Then maybe you need to stop using words that don't mean what you're trying to say. Or better yet, stop back pedaling.

And if you don't know, the fact that 11 million people are over there filling your jobs with no rights, IS oppression.

Which has what to do with anything I said?

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:If Bernie Sanders is elected to POTUS things will change in the US. Maybe not quickly but that man has more gumption than every single GOP elected official put together and will run roughshod over any opposition by using his intelligence and his infectious love for humanity.

LMAO

Ok, are you laughing as in "you're an idiot" or laughing as in "Dragobabe, you are awesome" ?

I still don't see the contradiction you see. But if it makes you feel better, I never said Agriculture would fail without illegals, you came up with it yourself.

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:Ok, are you laughing as in "you're an idiot" or laughing as in "Dragobabe, you are awesome" ?

I just thought it was funny.

Dragonbabe, you're awesome, but Bernie Sanders is as much a tool as any other career politician. He's just the "tool of the moment".

I never said Agriculture would fail without illegals

You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration.

This is far too reminiscent of the time that Ada claimed Alan Turing took the credit for other people's work and then in the very next post said she never claimed Turing took the credit for other people's work. I'm not sure whether to laugh or just stare at my computer screen in disbelief.

CashRules wrote:

I never said Agriculture would fail without illegals

You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration.

This is far too reminiscent of the time that Ada claimed Alan Turing took the credit for other people's work and then in the very next post said she never claimed Turing took the credit for other people's work. I'm not sure whether to laugh or just stare at my computer screen in disbelief.

Can we call this 'Liszting'?

I don't believe that. I have read everything I can get my greedy little paws onto about him, his history, and his plans as POTUS and he represents almost everything I have ever cared about. He's not all talking points and vague promises, his past actions give weight to his promises on the future.

For the first time ever, I donated to a politician.

Ptolemy_Banana wrote:

CashRules wrote:

I never said Agriculture would fail without illegals

You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration.

This is far too reminiscent of the time that Ada claimed Alan Turing took the credit for other people's work and then in the very next post said she never claimed Turing took the credit for other people's work. I'm not sure whether to laugh or just stare at my computer screen in disbelief.

Can we call this 'Liszting'?

Sounds good to me.

Funnily enough, I have also read quite a bit on him, and I've come to the conclusion he is indeed "all talking points and vague promises". He's an unscrupulous establishment pole-climber through and through.

Gypsy-Vanner wrote:I don't believe that. I have read everything I can get my greedy little paws onto about him, his history, and his plans as POTUS and he represents almost everything I have ever cared about. He's not all talking points and vague promises, his past actions give weight to his promises on the future.

For the first time ever, I donated to a politician.

You may be right about Sanders, and I'll take your optimism over lazy cynicism any day, but his intelligence and love for humanity will not allow him to ride roughshod over opposition. Politics is a game of compromise and favours and in the unlikely event of his election he will inevitably have some successes, but also failures which will have the wankers telling you they told you so.

CashRules wrote:

I never said Agriculture would fail without illegals

You can't even maintain your agriculture without illegal immigration.

This is far too reminiscent of the time that Ada claimed Alan Turing took the credit for other people's work and then in the very next post said she never claimed Turing took the credit for other people's work. I'm not sure whether to laugh or just stare at my computer screen in disbelief.

Yes, just because agriculture can't maintain itself without illegals doesn't mean it will fail without illegals. You made that connection yourself, I didn't. I never made such claim. Otherwise the southern farms would have find a solution to the problem, but they haven't, they still need a demand for illegals.