• Iceland refuses to Join EU - This is How Democracy Works
    103 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megafan;41053304] A unified monetary policy for the Eurozone without unified fiscal policy wasn't going to work, but the answer to that is to make a unified fiscal policy, not dismantle the monetary policy system you spent years establishing.[/QUOTE] Either works. The former just gives more power to the individual nations, which is what I favor. Some might favor the opposite, and think the opposite is preferable (But they'd be wrong :v: ). Current system is much, much worse than either. Too bad it's basically too late to save anything, at least this time around. Maybe they'll get their shit together and dismantle/unify before next time it crashes. [editline]16th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;41053335]The Euro is actually a good idea. The problem was that it was too wide and too unstrict at first. Should really have focused on certain economies first.[/QUOTE] So it's really a bad idea. Gotcha.
[QUOTE=Riller;41053345]Either works. The former just gives more power to the individual nations, which is what I favor. Some might favor the opposite, and think the opposite is preferable (But they'd be wrong :v: ). Current system is much, much worse than either. Too bad it's basically too late to save anything, at least this time around. Maybe they'll get their shit together and dismantle/unify before next time it crashes.[/QUOTE] We can do without the condescending tone, don't pretend electing a politician to a building in Brussels is somehow worse than electing a politician to a building in Copenhagen. The point is, you cannot just undo the work that has been done to construct the EU as it is, and it would benefit every citizen if it were improved rather than dismantled. The economic fallout from its collapse alone would be unthinkable. What Europe needs is a proper federation so that it can adjust fiscal policy to suit the Euro.
And yes; I'm biased. I feel like I have my right to be biased against it, because my tax money are going into the fuckin' all consuming pit that is fixing the Eurozone-crisis, despite not even being a proper part of the Eurozone and the crisis being completely fuckin' preventable by just not overexpanding that dumb shit from day one, and/or keep the Euro as a secondary international currency unrelated to the national one, like it is in Denmark, making travel/international trade easy with the Euro [B]and[/B] keeping the nation's financial mobility a thing, even in high waters.
[QUOTE=Riller;41053371]And yes; I'm biased. I feel like I have my right to be biased against it, because my tax money are going into the fuckin' all consuming pit that is fixing the Eurozone-crisis, despite not even being a proper part of the Eurozone and the crisis being completely fuckin' preventable by just not overexpanding that dumb shit from day one, and/or keep the Euro as a secondary international currency unrelated to the national one, like it is in Denmark, making travel/international trade easy with the Euro [B]and[/B] keeping the nation's financial mobility a thing, even in high waters.[/QUOTE] Okay, one, that was a huge run-on sentence. Two, we're talking about economics here, your personal feelings don't really come into it. Keeping the Euro as 'some kind of secondary currency'? In what world would that work exactly? And if you're upset about your tax money going to something you don't like, perhaps you'd like to stop paying national taxes as well? Your money is after all going to some things that don't directly benefit you. Not only that, but your notion of 'overexpanding' only exists because you disagree with the idea in the first place (without providing much of an argument against it, though) and think national monetary policy is somehow inherently better than monetary policy across a larger landmass.
[QUOTE=Megafan;41053440]Okay, one, that was a huge run-on sentence. Two, we're talking about economics here, your personal feelings don't really come into it.[/QUOTE] It's an opinion, though. What I personally think is what I am going to argue for, and what I think is obviously going to be affected by my experience with it. (Sorry 'bout runon sentences. I actually never quite understood what the hell the term even means, but it seems to make people mad. English is not my first, nor second language :v: ) [quote]Keeping the Euro as 'some kind of secondary currency'? In what world would that work exactly?[/quote] Oh, I don't know, the 10 countries of the EU that haven't adopted the Euro but where you can still walk into a shop and pay cash with Euros (Heh, euros. Sounds like a Greek god of sex) just fine, at a 1-1 exchange rate, and with the only loss being evil eyes from the cashier because the euro-notes are useless to use as change for the next customer? Works damn fine as a currency for trade and tourism 'round those parts; while still allowing national in- and deflation to regulate for poor/good exports. [quote]And if you're upset about your tax money going to something you don't like, perhaps you'd like to stop paying national taxes as well? Your money is after all going to some things that don't directly benefit you.[/quote] I never get sick, but some people do, and hospitals that I pay for help those people, because sick people is a thing that happens. I'm cool with paying for that. The Eurozone crisis was perfectly preventable in every god damn way, and yet it's still costing us billions upon billions of euros to fix every god damn year. I'm not cool with paying for that. [quote]Not only that, but your notion of 'overexpanding' only exists because you disagree with the idea in the first place (without providing much of an argument against it, though) and think national monetary policy is somehow inherently better than monetary policy across a larger landmass.[/quote] It is. At least when the larger landmass contains a shitton of different economies and policies. We got socialist and liberalist and conservative countries each wanting to run their money in different ways, and we got industrial giants like Germany and France next to lightweights and tourist-countries like Greece and Spain. Their economic forms aren't really compatible enough to form a unified economy on a single currency without individual mobility.
[QUOTE=Riller;41053516]It's an opinion, though. What I personally think is what I am going to argue for, and what I think is obviously going to be affected by my experience with it. (Sorry 'bout runon sentences. I actually never quite understood what the hell the term even means, but it seems to make people mad. English is not my first, nor second language :v: )[/QUOTE] Right, well opinions don't exist in a void where nothing matters, if you have an opinion it can certainly be supported by evidence. [QUOTE=Riller;41053516]Oh, I don't know, the 10 countries of the EU that haven't adopted the Euro but where you can still walk into a shop and pay cash with Euros (Heh, euros. Sounds like a Greek god of sex) just fine, at a 1-1 exchange rate, and with the only loss being evil eyes from the cashier because the euro-notes are useless to use as change for the next customer? Works damn fine as a currency for trade and tourism 'round those parts; while still allowing national in- and deflation to regulate for poor/good exports.[/QUOTE] But what's the purpose of doing this? An EU federation is no less capable (in system) at adjusting deflation or inflation than Germany or Denmark, and opting to keep it less efficient is just ridiculous. [QUOTE=Riller;41053516]I never get sick, but some people do, and hospitals that I pay for help those people, because sick people is a thing that happens. I'm cool with paying for that. The Eurozone crisis was perfectly preventable in every god damn way, and yet it's still costing us billions upon billions of euros to fix every god damn year. I'm not cool with paying for that.[/quote] So there's nothing your national taxes go to that you don't agree with? [QUOTE=Riller;41053516]It is. At least when the larger landmass contains a shitton of different economies and policies. We got socialist and liberalist and conservative countries each wanting to run their money in different ways, and we got industrial giants like Germany and France next to lightweights and tourist-countries like Greece and Spain. Their economic forms aren't really compatible enough to form a unified economy on a single currency without individual mobility.[/QUOTE] And what do you base this on, the claim that European nations are 'too different' to unify? How are we quantifying difference exactly? We in the US have tiny states that don't contribute much, like Rhode Island, and somehow manage without collapsing.
[QUOTE=Megafan;41053580]Right, well opinions don't exist in a void where nothing matters, if you have an opinion it can certainly be supported by evidence.[/quote] I don't have exact sources on much of what I say, because it's based on my knowledge from studying the subject a while back, and it's too early in the morning to dig up textbooks/I'm too lazy/I'm lying to look smart and really it's all pulled from my ass, whichever you prefer. [QUOTE]But what's the purpose of doing this? An EU federation is no less capable (in system) at adjusting deflation or inflation than Germany or Denmark, and opting to keep it less efficient is just ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Germany is fully incapable of ajusting on it's own today, because of the Euro binding it to the rest of Europe like some sorta kinky German fetish-porn. Denmark is formally unable to because we have, for simplicity, matched the Krone with the Euro in exchange-rate, but we can, if needed, break away from that without any issues, and start in- or deflating by printing more/less Kroner, if our economy needs the boost and/or limiting. A country like Greece could, in the early days of the crisis, have prevented a whole lot by causing some inflation in the Dragmar if it wasn't in the Eurozone, which would weaken it a little but make it a much more attractive country to do trade with due to low prices. Due to it being bound on the Euro, it was unable to do any sort of preventive economic measures, since other countries also on the Euro would have taken damage from the same measures that would save Greece. If you have individual currencies for every economy, you can ajust and float up and down with the tides, but if you lock several economies together on one currency, you suddenly get into deep shit if your money's worth too much or too little for your own good, unless everyone's in on de- or inflating for you. [QUOTE] So there's nothing your national taxes go to that you don't agree with?[/QUOTE] There's prolly a few things, but none of them are preventable money-holes like the Eurozone-crisis. [quote]And what do you base this on, the claim that European nations are 'too different' to unify? How are we quantifying difference exactly? We in the US have tiny states that don't contribute much, like Rhode Island, and somehow manage without collapsing.[/QUOTE] They might be unifiable in the long-term, but as it is, there's too much difference in industry, politics and economy for you to just slam a flat-rate currency on top. The US works because Rhode Island never was a thing on it's own in the first palce, it's always been a part of the union, like most every other state. It never needed to ajust it's round form to fit a square hole.
[QUOTE=Riller;41053658]I don't have exact sources on much of what I say, because it's based on my knowledge from studying the subject a while back, and it's too early in the morning to dig up textbooks/I'm too lazy/I'm lying to look smart and really it's all pulled from my ass, whichever you prefer.[/quote] If you're not going to bother then why are you posting about it? [QUOTE=Riller;41053658]Germany is fully incapable of ajusting on it's own today, because of the Euro binding it to the rest of Europe like some sorta kinky German fetish-porn. Denmark is formally unable to because we have, for simplicity, matched the Krone with the Euro in exchange-rate, but we can, if needed, break away from that without any issues, and start in- or deflating by printing more/less Kroner, if our economy needs the boost and/or limiting. A country like Greece could, in the early days of the crisis, have prevented a whole lot by causing some inflation in the Dragmar if it wasn't in the Eurozone, which would weaken it a little but make it a much more attractive country to do trade with due to low prices. Due to it being bound on the Euro, it was unable to do any sort of preventive economic measures, since other countries also on the Euro would have taken damage from the same measures that would save Greece. If you have individual currencies for every economy, you can ajust and float up and down with the tides, but if you lock several economies together on one currency, you suddenly get into deep shit if your money's worth too much or too little for your own good, unless everyone's in on de- or inflating for you.[/quote] I understand if English isn't your first language, but you're describing everything in vague terms and making sweeping statements like "Greece is weak because of the Euro" without any evidence. [QUOTE=Riller;41053658]There's prolly a few things, but none of them are preventable money-holes like the Eurozone-crisis.[/quote] I don't think you're in a position to judge that, especially having presented so little information here. [QUOTE=Riller;41053658]They might be unifiable in the long-term, but as it is, there's too much difference in industry, politics and economy for you to just slam a flat-rate currency on top. The US works because Rhode Island never was a thing on it's own in the first palce, it's always been a part of the union, like most every other state. It never needed to ajust it's round form to fit a square hole.[/QUOTE] I don't know how much you learn about US history in Denmark, but saying "it's always been a part of the union like most every other state" is flat-out wrong. Vermont, Texas, and California for example were other things before joining the US, and while secessionist movements exist they aren't very prominent. We even had a civil war if you recall.
[QUOTE=Megafan;41053714]If you're not going to bother then why are you posting about it?[/quote] Because I like a casual argument about politics and such from time to time. [QUOTE]I understand if English isn't your first language, but you're describing everything in vague terms and making sweeping statements like "Greece is weak because of the Euro" without any evidence. [/QUOTE] Greece is weak because of Greece being Greece. However, they're unable to save themselves because they cannot change the value of their currency, and as an extention, their products and services, to boost their export and industry on the international market. This is, and has always been, a common way to prevent failing horribly as a country. [QUOTE]I don't think you're in a position to judge that, especially having presented so little information here.[/QUOTE] Fine, then. I'm arguing my opinion and view on the things, you're free to disagree. [quote]I don't know how much you learn about US history in Denmark, but saying "it's always been a part of the union like most every other state" is flat-out wrong. Vermont, Texas, and California for example were other things before joining the US, and while secessionist movements exist they aren't very prominent. We even had a civil war if you recall.[/QUOTE] That's why I said 'most' every other state. Yeah, there's been a few things here and there, one little war, a few states were countries before they were states. But hey, you haven't had literally two thousand years worth of war between every state on the continent, nor has every state had between twenty and a thousand years to become it's very own little thing.
[QUOTE=Riller;41053760]Because I like a casual argument about politics and such from time to time.[/quote] Fantastic. [QUOTE=Riller;41053760]Greece is weak because of Greece being Greece. However, they're unable to save themselves because they cannot change the value of their currency, and as an extention, their products and services, to boost their export and industry on the international market. This is, and has always been, a common way to prevent failing horribly as a country.[/quote] How can you honestly say this and in any way think it's a well-formed position? "Greece is weak because of Greece being Greece"? The issue in Greece has much more to do with taxes not being paid properly, hardly because the Greek government can't inflate or deflate its currency. [QUOTE=Riller;41053760]Fine, then. I'm arguing my opinion and view on the things, you're free to disagree.[/QUOTE] Yes, but expressing an opinion doesn't make you exempt from criticism and you're not allowed to be condescending about it constantly. [QUOTE=Riller;41053760]That's why I said 'most' every other state. Yeah, there's been a few things here and there, one little war, a few states were countries before they were states. But hey, you haven't had literally two thousand years worth of war between every state on the continent, nor has every state had between twenty and a thousand years to become it's very own little thing.[/QUOTE] Relatively speaking it's just a matter of scale. No doubt no matter what the history of the US were, you'd dig out some other half-baked reason as to why it doesn't count like "it's an ocean away" or "they're not us".
[QUOTE=Megafan;41054389] Relatively speaking it's just a matter of scale. No doubt no matter what the history of the US were, you'd dig out some other half-baked reason as to why it doesn't count like "it's an ocean away" or "they're not us".[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's a matter of scale. The difference between taking a hike in a hill and climbing Everest is a matter of scale, too. It's the difference between unifying decades old colonies from three different countries, and unifying twenty seven different countries, all with thousands of years of history of mostly hostilities behind them, and different political systems, economies and industries.
[QUOTE=Riller;41054739]Yeah, it's a matter of scale. The difference between taking a hike in a hill and climbing Everest is a matter of scale, too. It's the difference between unifying decades old colonies from three different countries, and unifying twenty seven different countries, all with thousands of years of history of mostly hostilities behind them, and different political systems, economies and industries.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting the huge states that were in Europe not so long ago that then got piecemealed after ww1?
[QUOTE=Riller;41053760] Greece is weak because of Greece being Greece. However, they're unable to save themselves because they cannot change the value of their currency, and as an extention, their products and services, to boost their export and industry on the international market. This is, and has always been, a common way to prevent failing horribly as a country. [/QUOTE] Greece is not an industrial economy. It relies heavily on tourism and ships. So changing artificially the value of the currency wouldn't help at all. The greek problems are different: corruption and entering the euro zone in the first place. Spain's problems are also different: they have high unemployment and a big housing bubble. While it's true that Greece is in a really, REALLY bad situation, neither Spain nor Italy are on the verge of default or are holding back the EU as it is. Italy is the third economy in the Eurozone and Spain is the fourth, they both are facing a recession, but so is the rest of the Western World, Germany included. The difference is, this kind of crysis won't affect Germany that much not because they are the economic gods of the world (even if that's what they like to think), but because their economic system it's structured differently from others, as it relies on really big industries that aren't really affected by this crysis, whereas Italy relies on really high quality high prices exports (of course when you don't have the money you won't buy that fancy italian suit) and Spain on tourism and estate speculation.
[QUOTE=Riller;41053658]I don't have exact sources on much of what I say, because it's based on my knowledge from studying the subject a while back, and it's too early in the morning to dig up textbooks/I'm too lazy/I'm lying to look smart and really it's all pulled from my ass, whichever you prefer. Germany is fully incapable of ajusting on it's own today, because of the Euro binding it to the rest of Europe like some sorta kinky German fetish-porn. Denmark is formally unable to because we have, for simplicity, matched the Krone with the Euro in exchange-rate, but we can, if needed, break away from that without any issues, and start in- or deflating by printing more/less Kroner, if our economy needs the boost and/or limiting. A country like Greece could, in the early days of the crisis, have prevented a whole lot by causing some inflation in the Dragmar if it wasn't in the Eurozone, which would weaken it a little but make it a much more attractive country to do trade with due to low prices. Due to it being bound on the Euro, it was unable to do any sort of preventive economic measures, since other countries also on the Euro would have taken damage from the same measures that would save Greece. If you have individual currencies for every economy, you can ajust and float up and down with the tides, but if you lock several economies together on one currency, you suddenly get into deep shit if your money's worth too much or too little for your own good, unless everyone's in on de- or inflating for you. There's prolly a few things, but none of them are preventable money-holes like the Eurozone-crisis. They might be unifiable in the long-term, but as it is, there's too much difference in industry, politics and economy for you to just slam a flat-rate currency on top. The US works because Rhode Island never was a thing on it's own in the first palce, it's always been a part of the union, like most every other state. It never needed to ajust it's round form to fit a square hole.[/QUOTE] Being a fellow dane with just a hint of economic understanding, you're out of your mind. If you really think that ANY danish government (maybe a DF-Enhedslisten government, hah) will step away from the current Euro-DK exchange rate. As it is now, the exchange rate makes it very easy to trade with the rest of the euro-zone due to the stability of the rate. In reality, this means it doesn't really matter if the money is kroner or euros, it's basically the same at this point. Pegging on to the euro has made for a very stable kroner-rate, compared to earlier danish history. The reason we do this, is because former governments understood the idea of the stable exchange rate, but was unable to impose the euro on Denmark. I for one will grieve the day that Denmark leaves the euro-zone due to illogical nationalism and missing understanding of international trade and economics. [editline]16th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Riller;41054739]Yeah, it's a matter of scale. The difference between taking a hike in a hill and climbing Everest is a matter of scale, too. It's the difference between unifying decades old colonies from three different countries, and unifying twenty seven different countries, all with thousands of years of history of mostly hostilities behind them, and different political systems, economies and industries.[/QUOTE] If anything we have a very unifying history of royal houses intermarriages across all of Europe. Most of the industry is the same, although with slight differences comparing north and south, but nothing major. History SHOULD be the unifying argument. If your argument for non-unification is due to past wars, I think most countries in the world wouldn't have unified at all then. (China, Russia, India, USA, South America, Germany, Denmark etc)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.