Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 271 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 9:38 pm 
Offline
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 pm
Posts: 3875
tyler wrote:
Sandler wrote:
Healthcare and engineering are two areas in which the demand is far higher than the supply. Why couldn't our government(s) setup a system that encouraged people to earn degrees in these fields? You call this a draconian measure, but it's something that will benefit society and keep America competitive.
The incentive is there, it's called a good wage and near gauranteed employment.

I do think it's a bit harder now to graduate debt free than when I did it. So take eight years to get that degree part time. Take as many courses as possible at community colleges and make sure your grades are good enough that they can be transferred to university. There are councellors every step of the way who can help you with this. My kid got accepted to Berkley Music School (about $40k a yr) but he also found a school that follows the first two years of Berkley's cirriculum and all courses transferable for about $5k a yr. In the end he chose not to go to either but you can do it smart or you can do it expensive. There is choice out there and a shit load of bursuries and scholarships.

It's your life, you may have to work at it. You may even have to work harder at it than some people. You can focus on the outcome and your goals, or whine about the obstacles. I've yet to see a whiner succeed.

Sandler, this last it is not directed at you personally.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
Sandler wrote:
I agree with you guys that most people would benefit from college. I agree that people should take responsibility for themselves and invest in their future. I completely disagree, however, that it's anywhere near as easy to do as you guys think.

College tuition has risen at a faster pace than almost everything else. It rises much faster than wages. For the majority of people, loans are the only option, and as I'm sure you've all seen, those loans total more than $1 trillion now. America seems to like bubbles, and we're creating a doozie. People are being priced out of higher education, and those who bite the bullet and take out the loans graduate with huge debt. This is debt that will take many years to pay. A person does not need an advanced math degree to understand that this is a scenario that discourages college enrollment.

There was a point in time in America (and this is still true of many European countries) when we properly funded public higher education. The university systems in California and New York were wonderful models. Tuition was affordable and the quality of education was very good, but the economic crisis is taking its toll. As local and state budgets get squeezed, so do the funds for education.

LW wrote:
A well run public effort to have a well trained, capable work force, is NOT something that would benefit everyone.


I disagree with this. If America is to compete in a global market, it must have a capable workforce with skills and knowledge. If the overwhelming majority of people are priced out of private colleges, then it is absolutely necessary to make public higher education affordable, and you can only do this with subsidies. This DOES benefit everyone. The skilled positions, which are going unfilled today, get filled and there's less people competing for the unskilled jobs.

Healthcare and engineering are two areas in which the demand is far higher than the supply. Why couldn't our government(s) setup a system that encouraged people to earn degrees in these fields? You call this a draconian measure, but it's something that will benefit society and keep America competitive.


First, let's be clear here, when I speak about benefits I'm speaking of abject economic benefit. IE: a return on the investment of education. Higher education, just like anything else, is worth what the purchaser will pay for. If private actors feel that an educational path won't pay off, then why should government have the power to compel members of society to pay for it? You don't address my questions on this matter. If an investment in education doesn't provide an economic payoff, then why should government seek to pay it off? If good paying jobs are out there, why should society pay for someone to have access to an educational path that will provide them with a great wage when they graduate and near guaranteed employment?

It's tough to have a conversation about the costs of education without examining the reasons why education costs so much. It's not a free market. There is no risk priced into the education market. And the student cannot absolve their debts in bankruptcy court. Government has now monopolized the student loan industry. And you think MORE government is the answer? All government is, even in education, is a giant economic dislocation.

Grown adults should make adult decisions about their own career paths and their own educational decisions.

You know what else is true about many European universal college education systems? They're completely fucked.

Look at the list of the worlds top universities. It's completely dominated by American educational institutions. And our colleges (and Asian universities) are rising, while the European universities are sinking.

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Father Bitch
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 5198
Location: Connecticut
Gender: Male
If 80% of college students rely on more affordable public universities, and the funding for those intsitutions dries up when states have to divert that money to pay interest to banks that caused the crisis, it creates a situation where less people can attend. You guys seem to focus a lot on personal responsibilty, and that certainly matters, but it matters more to have a society where people of average means can send their kids to college without emptying their life savings or taking out high interest loans that take 15-20 years to pay. It is in the best interest of the country to provide low tuition higher education. Where is the responsibility to the tax payer? I don't know anyone who wants his tax dollars to go toward the record $35B quarterly profit that the banking industry just posted while John Smith sees his tuition rise by 10%.

LW wrote:
You know what else is true about many European universal college education systems? They're completely fucked.


Not true. Europeans are in a lot of debt, but less so than the US, and they are damn proud of their social programs. Look at France - for all the shit we say about them, they are in much less debt (about $34k per person versus our $48k per person). And that includes their healthcare, daycare, and most of their college. Their people are much more protected from the economic crisis.

And to say that the best colleges are in America means nothing. We were the richest nation on Earth for a long time, and there's still enough people with money to make the Harvards and Yales of America the richest universities ever. When your endowment fund is measured in the tens of billions, you can do a lot of things.

My original post in this thread wasn't really about college. It just seems to me that capitalism no longer works. The cliche argument that the rich keep getting richer at the expense of everyone else seems to ring more true every year. Local governments all over America sit there and decide whose funds are going to be cut, which roads aren't going to be fixed and which pensions will be damaged. Taxing the precious job creators is never even on the table. God forbid we take 10% more from people who can afford to pay it in order to keep our commitments to society.

_________________
...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Man, I used to be really invested in this pursuing this debate. Now I just don't have the energy or interest in trying to show Sandler where most of his arguments have gone awry.

Maybe someday.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
Sandler wrote:
If 80% of college students rely on more affordable public universities, and the funding for those intsitutions dries up when states have to divert that money to pay interest to banks that caused the crisis, it creates a situation where less people can attend. You guys seem to focus a lot on personal responsibilty, and that certainly matters, but it matters more to have a society where people of average means can send their kids to college without emptying their life savings or taking out high interest loans that take 15-20 years to pay. It is in the best interest of the country to provide low tuition higher education. Where is the responsibility to the tax payer? I don't know anyone who wants his tax dollars to go toward the record $35B quarterly profit that the banking industry just posted while John Smith sees his tuition rise by 10%.

LW wrote:
You know what else is true about many European universal college education systems? They're completely fucked.


Not true. Europeans are in a lot of debt, but less so than the US, and they are damn proud of their social programs. Look at France - for all the shit we say about them, they are in much less debt (about $34k per person versus our $48k per person). And that includes their healthcare, daycare, and most of their college. Their people are much more protected from the economic crisis.

And to say that the best colleges are in America means nothing. We were the richest nation on Earth for a long time, and there's still enough people with money to make the Harvards and Yales of America the richest universities ever. When your endowment fund is measured in the tens of billions, you can do a lot of things.

My original post in this thread wasn't really about college. It just seems to me that capitalism no longer works. The cliche argument that the rich keep getting richer at the expense of everyone else seems to ring more true every year. Local governments all over America sit there and decide whose funds are going to be cut, which roads aren't going to be fixed and which pensions will be damaged. Taxing the precious job creators is never even on the table. God forbid we take 10% more from people who can afford to pay it in order to keep our commitments to society.


Sorry dude, but you're out to lunch if you think that Europeans are better protected from economic crisis. It's called the European Debt Crisis for a reason - because they're not protected. Their economies are built upon intertwined debts, and their private banks are loaded with contagion that can essentially bring down their entire continental economy. Looking at per person debt is misleading, as the US a significantly higher per capita GDP output, and a better ability to repay our debts than the continent of Europe.

As Doks tried to get out of you, what do you think the purpose of capitalism is? What is it that it's supposed to do in order for it to work? Of course the rich get richer. The more wealth you have, the easier it is to build more wealth. The rich are not the most indebted people, it's the middle and lower classes that have largely built lives beyond their means on debt.

Tax them at 10% more. Go ahead. I dare you. See what you end up doing to society when you over-burden the producers and they decide it's no longer worth the reward for the work that they're doing.

College loans aren't high interest. Not even close.

Bank bailouts have nothing to do with socializing the risk of education. If I don't support one, why would I support the other? Did you ever read me supporting the bank bailouts?

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar
Father Bitch
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 5198
Location: Connecticut
Gender: Male
thodoks, instead of wasting time telling me why I'm wrong, can you please dedicate 10-15 minutes telling me how capitalism can be reformed (or rolled back) to bring us out of this mess? Every pro capitalist argument seems to be about making things ever easier and cheaper for the job creators. How easy and cheap does it need to be? Tax rates are at historical lows and this is the era of deregulation. Corporations post record profits regularly now. The banking industry made $35B this first quarter. So why isn't it trickling down? There's so much talk of personal responsibity and how it's the people that have failed capitalism instead of the other way around. But shouldn't an economic system work for the people? If the American dream is the idea that hard work pays off, then what does it mean when hard work doesn't pay off? When hard work, and even a college education aren't enough to achieve the American dream, can you really say we've failed capitalism? Or has it failed us? Is it reasonable to blame the gov't or private sector? Or is it reasonable to think that they each react to the rules/effects of the system?

You're the resident expert on economics, thodoks. If you have time, answer me these couple things.

1. Can America ever pay its $15.5T debt, which is currently growing at $1.5T a year while congress argues whether to cut $65B per year (GOP) or lessen the cuts to $35B (Team Blue).

2. If the private sector is unable or unwilling to hire the 13 million people who are out work and willing to work, does the government have any responsibilty to hire them? In other words, how long do we allow high unemployment at a time when public works jobs increase in need? If the answer to this is yes, do we borrow, print, or tax to pay for it?

And finally, if people are priced out of college due to lack of funding at a time of flat wages, how does America remain competitive in the global economy. Even if student loans are not allowed to be discharged in bankruptcy, how big do we allow this bubble to get before it's no longer reasonable to expect re-payment?

Please, just one short paragraph for each question, if you have time. I value your opinion on these matters. And please don't use the capitalism =/= corporatism argument. If capitalism progressed into corporatism, then there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again.

_________________
...


Last edited by Sandler on Wed May 30, 2012 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar
Father Bitch
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 5198
Location: Connecticut
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
It's called the European Debt Crisis for a reason


I've never heard anyone call this a european crisis. This is the fifth year of crisis, and the first half hit the US harder. Now it's their turn. What happens in the future is anyone's guess, but it probably won't be good for anyone. I do believe that currently the European people in general are better protected because the safety nets are better. Whether the their gov'ts survive or not is anyone's guess. I'd say their chances are as good as ours.

Quote:
Tax them at 10% more. Go ahead. I dare you. See what you end up doing to society when you over-burden the producers and they decide it's no longer worth the reward for the work that they're doing.


Corporate and income taxes used to be much higher, and they didn't leave. And even if this is a real, justified fear, I think it's ridiculous to be held hostage by small groups of people bullying us while we wait for them to decide whether they'll hire people or not.

_________________
...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
LittleWing wrote:
Tax them at 10% more. Go ahead. I dare you. See what you end up doing to society when you over-burden the producers and they decide it's no longer worth the reward for the work that they're doing.

Incentives matter, and - leaving aside precisely what constitutes a "producer" - you're right that there are long-term consequences associated with discouraging marginal sources of both foreign and domestic investment. But the better argument against increasing taxes is to outline that there are real contemporaneous costs associated with additional marginal tax burdens. That is, taxes distort cash flow, and most advocates of increasing taxes make the mistake of thinking that cash flow outside the ambit of the particular tax increase remains constant, which simply isn't the case. Taxing me an additional dollar leaves me with one less dollar to either spend, save, or invest. And because that dollar would have ultimately represented for an entrepreneur, business, corporation, or bank an additional dollar of taxable income, the respective ex-post taxable income of each is less than it would have been absent the increase in the marginal rate. That is, whatever increased revenue the government sees as a result of increasing taxes on A is offset by B, C, D, or E's smaller pool of taxable income. The net effect is a shift in the tax burden, not an increase in total revenues. The key to increasing tax revenue is to increase production; most empirical work puts revenues as a percentage of GDP somewhere between 18-22%, irrespective of the complexion of the tax code or marginal rates. (To be clear, I'm not commenting on the normative implications of tax policy; I'm only commenting on the erroneous and oft-repeated claim that increasing taxes will "solve" the revenue problem. It won't.)

That said, the case against increasing taxes is nearly as oversold as the case against cutting taxes. Debates over tax policy in general attract much, much more noise than signal. I would gladly agree to targeted tax increases (as a second-best alternative to a revamped tax code that eliminates corporate loopholes that put smaller firms at a competitive disadvantage to larger firms) if it meant significant spending cuts. Because both measures are terrible politics, neither will ever happen.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
That felt good. Maybe I'll dissect more of Sandler's posts later.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
thodoks wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
Tax them at 10% more. Go ahead. I dare you. See what you end up doing to society when you over-burden the producers and they decide it's no longer worth the reward for the work that they're doing.

Incentives matter, and - leaving aside precisely what constitutes a "producer" - you're right that there are long-term consequences associated with discouraging marginal sources of both foreign and domestic investment. But the better argument against increasing taxes is to outline that there are real contemporaneous costs associated with additional marginal tax burdens. That is, taxes distort cash flow, and most advocates of increasing taxes make the mistake of thinking that cash flow outside the ambit of the particular tax increase remains constant, which simply isn't the case. Taxing me an additional dollar leaves me with one less dollar to either spend, save, or invest. And because that dollar would have ultimately represented for an entrepreneur, business, corporation, or bank an additional dollar of taxable income, the respective ex-post taxable income of each is less than it would have been absent the increase in the marginal rate. That is, whatever increased revenue the government sees as a result of increasing taxes on A is offset by B, C, D, or E's smaller pool of taxable income. The net effect is a shift in the tax burden, not an increase in total revenues. The key to increasing tax revenue is to increase production; most empirical work puts revenues as a percentage of GDP somewhere between 18-22%, irrespective of the complexion of the tax code or marginal rates. (To be clear, I'm not commenting on the normative implications of tax policy; I'm only commenting on the erroneous and oft-repeated claim that increasing taxes will "solve" the revenue problem. It won't.)

That said, the case against increasing taxes is nearly as oversold as the case against cutting taxes. Debates over tax policy in general attract much, much more noise than signal. I would gladly agree to targeted tax increases (as a second-best alternative to a revamped tax code that eliminates corporate loopholes that put smaller firms at a competitive disadvantage to larger firms) if it meant significant spending cuts. Because both measures are terrible politics, neither will ever happen.


Excellent discourse from top to bottom. I have grown to favor tax increases for spending buts so long as redistributive programs are curbed, and the money goes towards paying down the public debt. But you have to understand what you are facing. You're facing a 99% crowd that doesn't function on rational thought. They function on emotions and jingoisms. They are the hope and change crowd, the CEOs have 400X more than we do crowd. You're facing people who believe that demand comes from simply giving people money to go out and consume without understanding that this redistribution comes at a cost of future production, or someone else's production. It's astonishing how many people I run in to who actually believe in just printing money.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get these people to understand that economies are predicated on production, our ability to produce, and willingness to produce. It doesn't matter how you frame the argument, they are rooted firmly in the idea that giving people currency to consume is the way out of a recession, and that we must increase marginal tax rates dramatic amounts for the purposes of wealth redistribution.

With that said, I think it's important to be cognizant of the fact that there are legitimate functions of government. I really don't look at tax rates from an economic perspective. It's a nice argument that favors our ideology, but to me it is a moral argument of forcing person A to contribute a different portion of the fruits of his labor to support the government that provides the necessary services that we all benefit from than person B. This classification of citizens, to me, is an abhorrent and divisive way to segregate society. The idea that one man owes a greater debt to society than another is unethical and repulsive. It is antithetical to the precepts of liberty - which should be the sole purpose of government.

But so long as people are focusing on their own personal economic situation without regard to rational thought or morality, we will continue down the road of jingoisms, wealth redistribution, and ever increasing progressive taxation.

I also find it odd how 99%ers have no concept of the difference between a marginal and effective tax rate...

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
Sandler wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
It's called the European Debt Crisis for a reason


I've never heard anyone call this a european crisis. This is the fifth year of crisis, and the first half hit the US harder. Now it's their turn. What happens in the future is anyone's guess, but it probably won't be good for anyone. I do believe that currently the European people in general are better protected because the safety nets are better. Whether the their gov'ts survive or not is anyone's guess. I'd say their chances are as good as ours.

Quote:
Tax them at 10% more. Go ahead. I dare you. See what you end up doing to society when you over-burden the producers and they decide it's no longer worth the reward for the work that they're doing.


Corporate and income taxes used to be much higher, and they didn't leave. And even if this is a real, justified fear, I think it's ridiculous to be held hostage by small groups of people bullying us while we wait for them to decide whether they'll hire people or not.


Really, you've never heard it called "The European Debt Crisis" Alright. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl= ... xAmVDlLXXE\\

The countries that were hit hardest when it first hit are the countries that are still being hit the hardest. The fundamentals of their economies that caused the crisis still exist on a pragmatic basis. There has been nothing to change their economic situations in a meaningful sense.

Looking at the corporate world compared to the past is largely irrelevant. In the 1940s corporations did not have the ability to up and leave the country. They do now. If you push taxes up too high, they will leave.

As to income tax rates, you're looking at marginal tax rates. But effectively they really don't very too much over time. The most important aspect is TOTAL taxation as a percentage of GDP. More and more of government revenues have been coming from alternative sources of income - higher state taxes, higher property taxes, more fines, more fees. And this has actually resulted in a more progressive tax structure.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/03/ ... e-tax.html

Image

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:00 am
Posts: 16093
Location: dublin
Gender: Male
Ireland's the one that could be the undoing of the Euro if we don't pass this referendum tomorrow.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-2 ... e-no-.html

EU Won’t Treat Irish as Greeks If They Vote ’No’
By John O’Brennan May 30, 2012 12:00 AM GMT

The eyes of the world are on elections in Greece next month that could determine whether it defaults and triggers contagion throughout the euro area. By contrast, Ireland’s referendum tomorrow on whether to ratify Europe’s new fiscal treaty is passing almost unnoticed.
That’s odd, because although Ireland can’t veto the pact -- its full name is the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union -- the government is warning voters that the very same thing could happen here as in Greece.
As in Greece, austerity in Ireland has been imposed by a coalition government of established centrist parties, Fine Gael and Labour. And as in Greece, the government is warning that unless voters cast their ballots the right way, the country could be cut off from access to funding provided by the European Stability Mechanism. That would certainly trigger an Irish default.
Why, supporters of a “Yes” vote ask, would the rest of the euro area go on bailing out a member that has rejected the rules of the currency union? And if, as most economists believe, Ireland will need a second bailout, the fiscal treaty’s preamble is explicit: It states that “the granting of assistance in the framework of new programs under the European Stability Mechanism will be conditional, as of 1 March, 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty.”
Greek Picnic
Default would be catastrophic for Ireland and for Europe. In fact, it would make a Greek default look like a picnic. German banks, in particular, are heavily exposed to Irish sovereign debt, carrying about 150 billion euros ($187 billion) worth on their books. That dwarfs their remaining exposure to Greece, and the problem isn’t confined to the euro area: U.K. banks hold about 180 billion euros of Irish debt.
Yet there are good reasons why markets aren’t tumbling on the risk of an Irish “No” vote, while proving hypersensitive to the election in Greece. The first is precisely that Irish debt is threaded through the European banking system to such an extent that even the possibility of an Irish default could do untold damage to market confidence in the euro. As a result, it’s highly unlikely that the euro-area governments, or the European Central Bank, would punish Ireland for rejecting the treaty by cutting off its lifeline. Doing so would amount to collective suicide.
A second reason is that Ireland isn’t Greece. The contrast between the ways in which the two countries have handled the financial crisis could hardly be greater. Ireland was among the first to be hit and to bail out its banks. It has been a poster child for austerity ever since, dutifully imposing every piece of fiscal tightening that the EU and the International Monetary Fund tied to its 85 billion-euro bailout.
If the EU’s star pupil were then to be consigned to the disaster zone of default, in response to an exercise in democracy such as a referendum, how could other debt-ridden states be convinced of the value of implementing austerity policies? And what would remain of EU solidarity, the glue that holds together the 27-nation bloc of giants like Germany and minnows like Ireland in a system based on consensus?
The stakes for Ireland are nevertheless large and help to explain the fervor with which the two sides are arguing over the possibility of default. The government also says ratifying the fiscal treaty would ensure stability and economic recovery, while rejecting it would do the country enormous reputational damage in Brussels and the U.S. That could jeopardize Ireland’s export-based recovery, which is dependent on foreign direct investment from U.S. multinationals.
‘Austerity Treaty’
On the “No” side, two left-wing parties -- Sinn Fein and the United Left Alliance -- have labeled the new set of fiscal rules the “EU Austerity Treaty.” They say adhering to it would entrench the EU’s control over Irish budgetary policy and lead to a dystopian future defined by higher taxes and lower social spending.
The case against the government’s stability argument is simple: If fiscal retrenchment is the only path to follow, why has this not produced a change in the fundamentals of the Irish economy after years of budgetary purgatory? After all, Ireland was much faster to react to the crisis than any other euro-area country, in both raising taxes and cutting spending.
Yet Irish borrowing rates remain higher than those of Italy and Spain, let alone in the core euro-area countries. Far from austerity encouraging a return to growth, Ireland is now in its fifth year of fiscal retrenchment. There will be virtually no growth in 2012, and the credit squeeze is just as evident as it was in 2009 or 2010.
The precarious position of Irish public finances means that regardless of the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, the Irish people will continue to suffer harsh budget cuts to education, health care and pensions. EU demands to move swiftly to a balanced budget position by 2015 mean that another four or five years of crippling cuts and zero growth may well turn the 2010s into a Japanese-style lost decade for Ireland.
Although the opinion polls have demonstrated a consistent lead for the “Yes” campaign of eight to 10 percentage points, the large number of undecided voters leaves the outcome still in doubt. Irish voters rejected EU treaties on two of the four last occasions they were given the chance, despite often strong opinion-poll leads in favor of ratification during the campaigns.
Enda Kenny, Ireland’s prime minister, and his colleagues are hoping the electorate won’t turn the vote into a referendum on four years of austerity. If they do, then there’s no hope for approval. An Irish “No” would add to the growing standoff over the EU’s austerity policies, generated by the strong protest vote in Greek elections earlier this month and by French President Francois Hollande’s efforts to shift the policy’s focus toward growth. Even the possibility of default arising from a “No” vote tomorrow would ensure that the Irish question quickly becomes a European one.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-2 ... e-no-.html

_________________
At the end of the day, it's night.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Father Bitch
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am
Posts: 5198
Location: Connecticut
Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
Really, you've never heard it called "The European Debt Crisis" Alright. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl= ... xAmVDlLXXE\\


I'm not saying there isn't a european debt crisis. What I'm saying is that there is a debt crisis in general, and to call it European is misleading. Most countries practicing capitalism are in crisis.

Quote:
The countries that were hit hardest when it first hit are the countries that are still being hit the hardest. The fundamentals of their economies that caused the crisis still exist on a pragmatic basis. There has been nothing to change their economic situations in a meaningful sense.


This includes America, and does not include some major European countries.

Quote:
Looking at the corporate world compared to the past is largely irrelevant. In the 1940s corporations did not have the ability to up and leave the country. They do now. If you push taxes up too high, they will leave.


This is interesting to me. I don't believe all (or most) would leave, but I suppose this is a very real threat. Your statement implies a couple things that bother me though. First, why should Americans be forced to allow corporations like GE and Wells Fargo (to name only a couple) to take in huge profits and effectively pay no taxes at all on those profits while the mass of people have austerity imposed on them? Your statement seems to acknowledge that they've got all the power and we must comply. Aren't we the people supposed to decide how industry is run? Second, why is it unreasonable to think that if they did leave, someone else would come in and be happy to provide the service for a smaller profit? Why is it unreasonable to believe that a well run public effort could provide many of these services at cost (and I realize that serious gov't reform would be necessary)?

Basically, it seems that we recognize the same problem, but you want to cater to these corporations to keep them happy. And unfortunately for people who think like I do, it seems the president and all our congress are on your side. I understand why they want it to stay this way. "Donations" will do that. But for an average person to not want things to fundamentally change so that we stop going through these problems every 3-7 years (hasn't there been like 10 recessions between the depression and this cirsis?) is beyond me.

_________________
...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:52 pm
Posts: 8288
capitalism and socialism work fine, all our problems are because you are bad people who make stupid decisions! they are perfect systems!

_________________
Sweep the leg!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm
Posts: 9282
Location: Atlanta
Gender: Male
If only the IOC would put the Olympics in Greece... that would help :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

_________________
Attention Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:49 pm
Posts: 9495
Location: Richie-Richville, Maryland
bmacsmith wrote:
capitalism and socialism work fine, all our problems are because you are bad people who make stupid decisions! they are perfect systems!


Could it be that humans are selfish by their inalienable nature and that one of these systems drives our natural instinct to the extreme to the detriment of society while the other oppresses it to the detriment of the individual and thus society?

_________________
you get a lifetime, that's it.


Last edited by broken iris on Wed May 30, 2012 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 10993
Gender: Male
greg mankiw reminds me of somebody

_________________
i8pork wrote:
being on the internet is fun as hell. :comp:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am
Posts: 10694
Sandler wrote:
LittleWing wrote:
Really, you've never heard it called "The European Debt Crisis" Alright. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl= ... xAmVDlLXXE\\


I'm not saying there isn't a european debt crisis. What I'm saying is that there is a debt crisis in general, and to call it European is misleading. Most countries practicing capitalism are in crisis.

Quote:
The countries that were hit hardest when it first hit are the countries that are still being hit the hardest. The fundamentals of their economies that caused the crisis still exist on a pragmatic basis. There has been nothing to change their economic situations in a meaningful sense.


This includes America, and does not include some major European countries.

Quote:
Looking at the corporate world compared to the past is largely irrelevant. In the 1940s corporations did not have the ability to up and leave the country. They do now. If you push taxes up too high, they will leave.


This is interesting to me. I don't believe all (or most) would leave, but I suppose this is a very real threat. Your statement implies a couple things that bother me though. First, why should Americans be forced to allow corporations like GE and Wells Fargo (to name only a couple) to take in huge profits and effectively pay no taxes at all on those profits while the mass of people have austerity imposed on them? Your statement seems to acknowledge that they've got all the power and we must comply. Aren't we the people supposed to decide how industry is run? Second, why is it unreasonable to think that if they did leave, someone else would come in and be happy to provide the service for a smaller profit? Why is it unreasonable to believe that a well run public effort could provide many of these services at cost (and I realize that serious gov't reform would be necessary)?

Basically, it seems that we recognize the same problem, but you want to cater to these corporations to keep them happy. And unfortunately for people who think like I do, it seems the president and all our congress are on your side. I understand why they want it to stay this way. "Donations" will do that. But for an average person to not want things to fundamentally change so that we stop going through these problems every 3-7 years (hasn't there been like 10 recessions between the depression and this cirsis?) is beyond me.


All of them wouldn't leave. Pre-eminent companies that capitalize on American talent would certainly not leave. A lot service oriented companies wouldn't leave. The problem is that it doesn't take many people at all to take their skin out of the game to have a significant impact on the quality of life for many Americans.

The reason GE and Wells haven't been paying taxes is because they've been writing down incredible losses from the prior years. I don't like this scheme, but on the other hand I am very cognizant that it preserves a lot of businesses through the tough times. It provides an incentive to remain in business.

I believe that so far as the feds go, that all first time earned income should be taxed at a flat rate. Honestly, I don't really believe in "corporate" tax rates on profits. Those profits go somewhere. Investments, dividends, bonuses. Tax the money at THAT point. What I find disturbing is that people view corporate profits as a conduit to funnel money into the things that they want, and I don't find this to be a moral position.

We do decide how industry is run. But when we impose taxes on businesses, we are telling them how they should be run, and they need not comply with our demands.

It is unreasonable to believe that if corporations left that someone else would step in and do it for less profit because if people were willing to do that, they'd already be doing it. That's what competition in the market place is prima facie. If the pre-existing corporations are operating on X profit, and someone was willing to do it for Y profit, which is less than X ,then the lesser company, provided it was making an equivalent product, would win marketshare over the company due to the consumers desire to obtain the best value they can. The only way corporations stay put, or new corporations come about is if consumers are willing to pay the extra fees and taxes. And how is it reasonable to presume that these companies would be able to compete with corporations that outsource and import from a more competitive market? A well run public effort will never be as effective as a private effort. Government steps in areas are specifically because people in the private sector are unwilling to do it...

I'm not catering to anyone. I want people treated the same...

_________________
Its a Wonderful Life


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
*nevermind

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Greece Financial Bailout
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 Profile

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am
Posts: 7189
Location: CA
Yeah, you've already established that the hypothetical in case you fail to pay your medical bills situation necessitates a significant increase in federal power, at least in your opinion. Democratic talking points for the win!


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 271 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:25 am