Support NeoGAF

[oti]

So Hollande believes that only an even closer EU can battle the European right wing movement. While Merkel believes the opposite to be the case, that Brexit shows this is exactly the wrong way to go and that the EU government is too powerful.

So, who's right?

 

[Micael]

Not every european. Spain, Portugal and "to a lesser extent" Italy (among others) were/are (partially) fucked because of it.

I have an extremely hard time imagining a world where the Escudo wouldn't be doing extremely horribly, considering how poor the Portuguese economy is.

 

[Fernando Fernandez]

That tweet is a complete straw man. People aren't saying he didn't do enough events. What they are saying is:

1) when he did speak about Europe it was to spend longer critiquing it than to say why we should stay
2) numerous speeches had Europe ripped out by his office
3) he refused to joint appearance,s which repeated polling found would have really helped
4) he went on holiday during the middle of it
5) Labour group offices were not supported properly at all (see Welsh labours complaint)
6) voter data, one of the most crucial parts of modern campaigning, wasn't shared

I mean, people in our UKpolgaf thread were complaining about Corbyns obvious lack of willing months ago. Polling showed that Labour voters didn't know what Labour's position was on the vote.

(Oh, and Alan Johnson isn't supposed to be doing tons of appearances, that wasn't his job. Again, straw man).

Yeah I was making a point that Dave did a huge amount of campaigning, that was the only tweet I've seen with that information in it!

 

[Xando]

So Hollande believes that only an even closer EU can battle the European right wing movement. While Merkel believes the opposite to be the case, that Brexit shows this is exactly the wrong way to go and that the EU government is too powerful.

So, who's right?

I think more EU (the institution) is not the best way at the moment. Member states should increase cooperation with each other without having the power in brussels. Mainly because i don't trust juncker and schultz after their latest stunts with CETA

 

[cilonen]

So Hollande believes that only an even closer EU can battle the European right wing movement. While Merkel believes the opposite to be the case, that Brexit shows this is exactly the wrong way to go and that the EU government is too powerful.

So, who's right?

Hollande will be out of a job in less than a year, so his opinion doesn't matter too much really.

I think closer union between the founding core is inevitable, whether the southern or northern fringes can a) economically cope or b) politically want to go along is all up in the air though.

 

[The Adder]

Oh aside from that tiny detail huh? The European South isn't and neither was Ireland. Even after Ireland was released from the clutches of the EU neoliberal regime its population still hasn't recovered. And I purposely say population instead of economy because economic numbers rarely reflect the actual reality in the country, hell even unemployment numbers don't in many occasions where the neoliberal fucks have crippled labour rights to decimate full pay jobs, increase part time positions, reduce salaries and layoff protections while deceiving the public with cooked numbers.



I actually agree with that, but since the right and far right were leading the campaign I wouldn't expect any better. So did the Stay campaign btw with its moronic narrative about the benevolent EU and the racist Leave voters.




Facts are now "meaningless buzzwords". Do you want me to link you to articles about ho terribly planned Euro is (maybe deliberately but that's a different discussion) and why it will fuck up again in the next crisis? I had another one in mind but since there are people who will definitely complain about the source not being a known corporate media conglomerate, here's one from the economist explaining in pretty simple terms the problem euro has in its very foundations: http://www.economist.com/news/finan...d-holds-worrying-lessons-single-currency-trio

And btw you sure are paying a steep premium for a fad like a common currency to travel wherever you want in Europe. You do realize that you can easily exchange currencies, right? You do realize that most people don't leave their countries that often, right?



No, Corbyn knows how to play the game in a rotten system. At the current state the political system is there is no other option. The Labour Party is just another neoliberal party pretending to be left like the vast majority of "socialist" parties in Europe. There is no other way to take them over and put actual leftists in powerful positions other than try to at least not antagonize the corporate puppets controlling these parties for now.



The weak are already suffering. The goal now is to stop their suffering instead of prolonging it with what I call appeasers of neoliberalism aka the liberal fuckwits who want a more humane neoliberalism as if such thing could ever exist.

Before you continue, do me a favor? Define "neoliberal" and/or "neoliberalism".

 

[Yoda]

So since the stock-market has bounced back and shown the short-selling-doomersayers that their full of themselves; I think the stay campaign would serve themselves better if they sold the benefits of the EU instead of the identity politics and fear-mongering which clearly didn't work for the referendum.

 

[KingSnake]

So Hollande believes that only an even closer EU can battle the European right wing movement. While Merkel believes the opposite to be the case, that Brexit shows this is exactly the wrong way to go and that the EU government is too powerful.

So, who's right?

Both. With Merkel understanding that now it's not the time to push for more.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Because some countries struggle to keep their deficit in line with the 3% GDP mantra (and France is one of them), doesn't make the Euro less convenient.

That's not the argument.

 

[inoperativ]

I theorized this earlier in the discussion, but wasn't sure what the actual numbers would look like. Didn't think it would look as bad as that, and I would hope an actual GE would have different results.

Nevertheless, my assertion that if the mainstream parties abandon Brexit then UKIP will pick up a load of seats, and maybe even power, looks all too possible. No way the Tories decide against Article 50 while the numbers look anything like that.

Indeed. It also shows the incredible weakness of Labour right now. They will keep picking up more and more support in urban centres but even if they increase their total share of the vote they will lose seats due to the complete collapse of their support in former heartlands. It's not hard to imagine a near future where the Tories are in permanent control of parliament and slowly but surely become more authoritarian to fend off UKIP. I don't think even the PLP appreciate just how fucked they are if they don't manage to change the voting system ASAP. Not just in the short term, but for good.

Again, I am genuinely afraid of what the coming years will bring. The country is divided and as this referendum has shown, there are plenty of senior Tories who are happy to flirt with outright fascism if it brings in votes.

 

[lazer_bean]

Because some countries struggle to keep their deficit in line with the 3% GDP mantra (and France is one of them), doesn't make the Euro less convenient.

It's better for a country to borrow money from its national bank, paying no or next to no interest on it rather than a country borrowing from private banks on high interest rates, which is what happened with the Euro.
I do agree that the Euro is convenient, though. Actually, I would call it luxury rather than convenience, given what it cost.

 

[spekkeh]

So since the stock-market has bounced back and shown the short-selling-doomersayers that their full of themselves; I think the stay campaign would serve themselves better if they sold the benefits of the EU instead of the identity politics and fear-mongering which clearly didn't work for the referendum.

The stock market bounced back because there's clearly not going to be a Brexit, not because a Brexit wouldn't be disastrous.

 

[Corto]

I have an extremely hard time imagining a world where the Escudo wouldn't be doing extremely horribly, considering how poor the Portuguese economy is.

It would be more devalued than the Kwanza, and we would have an exploding inflation by now. But blaming the euro is easy because our difficulties are real and palpable but a scenario with Escudo as our currency is just that, a possible scenario. And as the UK referendum as taught us all, possible positive scenarios, even if very improbable, will fare better in peoples mind than living with the current reality. It's easier to sell "a world of possibilities", "taking back control" and pass the bucket to the euro, EU or nebulous bureaucrats.

 

[KingSnake]

So since the stock-market has bounced back and shown the short-selling-doomersayers that their full of themselves; I think the stay campaign would serve themselves better if they sold the benefits of the EU instead of the identity politics and fear-mongering which clearly didn't work for the referendum.

Nobody in UK has the balls to call article 50, so the market is banking on staying in EU.

 

[kmag]

So since the stock-market has bounced back and shown the short-selling-doomersayers that their full of themselves; I think the stay campaign would serve themselves better if they sold the benefits of the EU instead of the identity politics and fear-mongering which clearly didn't work for the referendum.

The stock market has bounced back for a couple of reasons

1. The fall in the pound coupled with the near zero yield on bonds have left UK investors with no where to go especially with the prospects of a cut in interest rates
2. The majority of money is being parked in UK based multinationals which can mitigate their exposure to the turbulent UK economy and gain due to their results being declared in pounds (so by and large the fall of the pound inflates their profits)
3. Foreign investors are using their gain in buying power to dip into multinationals on the cheap.
4. We're in a weird holding pattern and there's a sense with some investors that the button will not be pushed.

The stock market performance shouldn't be taken as signs things are rosy, Carney pretty much wrote in neon that the UK economy is heading for a technical recession or at least multiple quarters of really depressed growth.

 

[Plum]

So since the stock-market has bounced back and shown the short-selling-doomersayers that their full of themselves; I think the stay campaign would serve themselves better if they sold the benefits of the EU instead of the identity politics and fear-mongering which clearly didn't work for the referendum.

Lets wait and see what happens if an actual Brexit occurs, because of course the markets would bounce back somewhat a week after a glorified opinion poll hasn't actually done anything.

 

[Yoda]

So Hollande believes that only an even closer EU can battle the European right wing movement. While Merkel believes the opposite to be the case, that Brexit shows this is exactly the wrong way to go and that the EU government is too powerful.

So, who's right?

When the U.S. was sold on the idea of a federal government, it was very clear that is what it was... a government above the others, but with the idea that passing laws at the federal level should be intentionally hard, thus limiting it's power.

The EU is somewhat synonymous with the U.S. in terms of uniting sovereign governments under a central authority, but the EU was NEVER suppose to be a central government. It had two main purposes: bind Europe closer together culturally, to avoid WWIII and a way to increase their economic leverage throughout the world. That is why Brussels is largely an undemocratic institution, the bureaucrats aren't suppose to have the power to mess with your daily lives; but that is starting to change, but the undemocratic part isn't. If the EU wants more power, the current stakeholders need to open the EU up to be subject to voters. Right now MPs don't command enough authority over drafting legislation, which is the prime source of power in any legislature. If the EU makes dramatic efforts to grab power, it'll play into the right-wings hands that the boogeymen are out to steal people's freedom.

 

[Hasney]

So since the stock-market has bounced back and shown the short-selling-doomersayers that their full of themselves; I think the stay campaign would serve themselves better if they sold the benefits of the EU instead of the identity politics and fear-mongering which clearly didn't work for the referendum.

Well considering nothings happened yet with leaving the EU, the FTSE250 hasn't fully recovered and the value of both is down due to the pound losing strength, I wouldn't exactly call that "bounced back". Wait until we actually start the process.

 

[oti]

People from weaker economies blaming the Euro are shortsighted. Yes, you can devalue your own currency and that's a tool that is nice to have. But you can't devalue it indefinitely. In the end a currency has to be backed by a strong, robust economy. Greece doesn't have that. Greece benefited immensely from the Euro in its early years. Terrible politicians and borderline illegal mismanagement ruined the country, not the Euro or the EU. That said, I agree that the EU is a bit too Merkel and not Hollande/Renzi enough when it comes to austerity, debt, deficit spending. Merkel isn't wrong but not every economy is Germany. I think that critique of the EU is fair to some degree. And a good chunk of people I have met (here in Germany) agree.

 

[inoperativ]

The stock market bounced back because there's clearly not going to be a Brexit, not because a Brexit wouldn't be disastrous.

No. FTSE is traded in £, so due to the current weakness of the £ versus the $ (which is what most international investors trade in) everything looks very cheap to them at the moment. What you're seeing in the FTSE 100 is a fire sale of "British" companies that are big enough to basically be completely international and hence not as sensitive to a Brexit, away from British investors to international ones. The FTSE 250 is still down considerably (again, you need to factor in $/£) and better reflects the world's view of the British economy. In effect the stock markets are saying "We don't think this will have much of an impact on the wider world economy, but Britain is probably pretty fucked."

This is why the FTSE 100 shot up as the BoE implied rates would go down -> £ tumbled further -> cheaper shares.

 

[Yoda]

The stock market has bounced back for a couple of reasons

1. The fall in the pound coupled with the near zero yield on bonds have left UK investors with no where to go especially with the prospects of a cut in interest rates
2. The majority of money is being parked in UK based multinationals which can mitigate their exposure to the turbulent UK economy and gain due to their results being declared in pounds (so by and large the fall of the pound inflates their profits)
3. Foreign investors are using their gain in buying power to dip into multinationals on the cheap.
4. We're in a weird holding pattern and there's a sense with some investors that the button will not be pushed.

The stock market performance shouldn't be taken as signs things are rosy, Carney pretty much wrote in neon that the UK economy is heading for a technical recession or at least multiple quarters of really depressed growth.

I work in finance, and most traders I know said it was a buying opp, no one seems to think the UK wouldn't simply renegotiate most of the trade deals anyway, and most multinationals based out of the UK are healthier than your average EU multinational (save those say in Germany). I've haven't picked up on the belief that brexit WON'T happen. Overturning the will of the voters would cause serious political turmoil in the UK (worse than we are seeing now).

Regardless the messaging needs to change, the divide and conquer politics of shaming/identity/etc... won't help in a divided country; ignoring the issues that the EU caused the UK (and still causes other EU nations) is fodder for the right-wing.

 

[DrFurbs]

Has this been mentioned?

Osborne is to reduce corporation tax to 15% to give incentive for companies to stay. Lowest in EU (BAR Ireland)


Great move IMO.

 

[Corto]

People from weaker economies trashing the Euro are shortsighted. Yes, you can devalue your currency and that's a tool that is nice to have. But you can't devalue it indefinitely. In the end a currency has to be backed by a strong, robust economy. Greece doesn't have that. Greece benefited immensely from the Euro in its early years. Terrible politicians and borderline illegal mismanagement ruined the country, not the Euro or the EU. That said, I agree that the EU is a bit too Merkel and not Hollande/Renzi enough when it comes to austerity, debt, deficit spending. Merkel isn't wrong but not every economy is Germany. I think that critique of the EU is fair to some degree. And good chunk of people I have met (here in Germany) agree.

It was real illegal mismanagement, nothing borderline about it. And in Portugal the same. Our disgrace is the poor quality of our elites, at all levels: ethical, cultural, political and technical. A country that in 40 years of democracy has three assistance programs has critical problems at its leadership level. And a fourth one is looming. Now for bank assistance and consolidation. People will soon realize that a central European government would save us from our politicians.

 

[Hasney]

Has this been mentioned?

Osborne is to reduce corporation tax to 15% to give incentive for companies to stay. Lowest in EU (BAR Ireland)


Great move IMO.

Its not a bad move, but what's going to make up the shortfall? They've already called for an end to austerity, so I assumed there would be more funding for the less vulnerable going forward, but I guess not.

Unless they're just going to borrow and try to make it the best budget ever and then leave whoever to balance the books.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

George Osborne has pledged to slash corporation tax to encourage businesses to still invest in the UK following the EU referendum vote.

In an interview with the Financial Times, the chancellor said he would cut the rate to below 15% - some 5% lower than its current 20% rate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36699642

 

[Deleted member 231381]

People from weaker economies blaming the Euro are shortsighted. Yes, you can devalue your own currency and that's a tool that is nice to have. But you can't devalue it indefinitely. In the end a currency has to be backed by a strong, robust economy. Greece doesn't have that. Greece benefited immensely from the Euro in its early years. Terrible politicians and borderline illegal mismanagement ruined the country, not the Euro or the EU. That said, I agree that the EU is a bit too Merkel and not Hollande/Renzi enough when it comes to austerity, debt, deficit spending. Merkel isn't wrong but not every economy is Germany. I think that critique of the EU is fair to some degree. And a good chunk of people I have met (here in Germany) agree.

It's not about devaluing your economy per se, it's about having a currency which has an accurate valuation for your economy. Greece would have a had a stronger economy if it had never been in the Euro because Greek exports would have been more competitive. You're right there are more problems than that, but it's a very large problem indeed. Equally, Germany's economy would not be as good if it wasn't in the Euro, because it wouldn't be trading using such an undervalued economy. German exports would have been much more expensive and given Germany's export orientation, it's more than a little insensitive to hold up Germany as a paragon of economic competence to the Southern European economies because they've effectively been subsidising Germany that whole time. In practice, the Euro has been a transfer scheme from poorer countries to wealthier ones and especially Germany because the ECB has almost always been influenced most strongly by the Bundesbank.

That's nothing to do with "neoliberalism", though. It's much more to do with nationalism. You can't have monetary union without fiscal union, and German citizens have proved insufficiently European in sentiment to allow for the kind of fiscal transfers necessary.

 

[Riddick]

Before you continue, do me a favor? Define "neoliberal" and/or "neoliberalism".

Neoliberalism is the system invented American economists with the sole purpose of serving corporations and banks. It's basically corporatocracy. Many people have the illusion that the particular system has principles but it doesn't. When the ruling class is threatened for example it has no qualms with imposing heavy taxation on populations, even though the "ideology" is supposedly staunchly against that, to save their corrupt banking system like it happened in many EU countries for example in order to avoid defaulting on their debts and bringing down French and German banks.

Neoliberals are the corrupt scum serving that system or the morons who actually believe in it as an ideology. The ability of the neoliberal system to co-opt movements, parties and ideologies is also worth noting and so its ability to create distractions or divide the lower classes. And before some smartass accuses me of conspiracy theories, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy I'm saying it's a well oiled machine. The corporate media do their job misinforming, pitting us against each other and omitting information, the politicians do their job screwing the little guy to benefit corporations and banks, the bankers do their job corrupting politicians and creating a "free" market economy they fully control, the CEOs do their jobs corrupting politicians and exploiting the workforce with the help of the aforementioned politicians and so on.

 

[oti]

It's not about devaluing your economy per se, it's about having a currency which has an accurate valuation for your economy. Greece would have a had a stronger economy if it had never been in the Euro because Greek exports would have been more competitive. You're right there are more problems than that, but it's a very large problem indeed. Equally, Germany's economy would not be as good if it wasn't in the Euro, because it wouldn't be trading using such an undervalued economy. German exports would have been much more expensive and given Germany's export orientation, it's more than a little insensitive to hold up Germany as a paragon of economic competence to the Southern European economies because they've effectively been subsidising Germany that whole time. In practice, the Euro has been a transfer scheme from poorer countries to wealthier ones and especially Germany because the ECB has almost always been influenced most strongly by the Bundesbank.

That's nothing to do with "neoliberalism", though. It's much more to do with nationalism. You can't have monetary union without fiscal union, and German citizens have proved insufficiently European in sentiment to allow for the kind of fiscal transfers necessary.

True true true. I hated Germany's outright dismissal of Eurobonds for instance. It's a messy "solution" to a real problem for weaker economies within the Eurozone but this whole Union is messy.

 

[Moosichu]

Has this been mentioned?

Osborne is to reduce corporation tax to 15% to give incentive for companies to stay. Lowest in EU (BAR Ireland)


Great move IMO.

Great move for cooperations. Bad move for people who rely on the welfare state.

 

[Theonik]

Not only that, the northern countries will get rid of Dragi at the next chance they get, the north likes to put money away for stability, Mario only likes to print by throwing money at problems without taking proper measures. At the next crisis things are going to implode if it already has not with the UK most likely leaving Junckers dictatorship behind them.

I think the problem is less with Dragi, and more with the political complexities that arise when you have a monetary union with no political or fiscal union. The ECB wants to do one thing, but isn't actually backed by the political will. The Grexit shenanigans last year were full of this with national interests of each party standing in the way of making an actual long lasting solution. (i.e. other member states don't need to worry about the feelings of the Greek/Spanish/etc voter and they'd be damned if they let that affect them in their next election back home.) Some countries you could see this clear as day. Pushing the can forward was seen as the better solution.

People from weaker economies blaming the Euro are shortsighted. Yes, you can devalue your own currency and that's a tool that is nice to have. But you can't devalue it indefinitely. In the end a currency has to be backed by a strong, robust economy. Greece doesn't have that. Greece benefited immensely from the Euro in its early years. Terrible politicians and borderline illegal mismanagement ruined the country, not the Euro or the EU. That said, I agree that the EU is a bit too Merkel and not Hollande/Renzi enough when it comes to austerity, debt, deficit spending. Merkel isn't wrong but not every economy is Germany. I think that critique of the EU is fair to some degree. And a good chunk of people I have met (here in Germany) agree.

It is not so much that the Euro as a currency is the problem. The problem is that there is no one size fits all for several very different economies and the Euro makes regulating imbalances like these difficult. The EZ also really lacked mechanisms to deal with these crisis and I'd argue it still does.

 

[nickcv]

On the way back home me and my bf decide to take a Uber.
The driver had the radio on for the whole time and the speaker was discussing politics and interviewing people...
Me and my bf on the back seat spoke in italian for the whole time.
5 minutes away from our apartment the guys asked if we were Polish.
We tell him we are italian and the his reaction was: "how so you are tourists?"

I said yes.

 

[KingSnake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36699642

That's a good move. Question is what is the compensation?

 

[nickcv]

was this one posted already?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/201...de-whether-or-not-to-leave-the-eu-say-lawyers

A prominent law firm is taking pre-emptive legal action against the government, following the EU referendum result, to try to ensure article 50 is not triggered without an act of parliament.

Acting on behalf of an anonymous group of clients, solicitors at Mishcon de Reya have been in contact with government lawyers to seek assurances over the process, and plan to pursue it through the courts if they are not satisfied. The law firm has retained the services of senior constitutional barristers, including Lord Pannick QC and Rhodri Thompson QC.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

#peakPatriotism

jesus christ, those shoes make me sick

 

[Pandy]

Its not a bad move, but what's going to make up the shortfall? They've already called for an end to austerity, so I assumed there would be more funding for the less vulnerable going forward, but I guess not.

Unless they're just going to borrow and try to make it the best budget ever and then leave whoever to balance the books.

lmao

 

[inoperativ]

Has this been mentioned?

Osborne is to reduce corporation tax to 15% to give incentive for companies to stay. Lowest in EU (BAR Ireland)


Great move IMO.

Inevitable, but yeah the next couple of years are going to be incredibly harsh. This would be the right time to start bringing some big and actually useful infra projects forward but we'll probably get a nice debate about HS2 and nothing comes out of it.

 

[Corto]

Neoliberalism is the system invented American economists with the sole purpose of serving corporations and banks. It's basically corporatocracy. Many people have the illusion that the particular system has principles but it doesn't. When the ruling class is threatened for example it has no qualms with imposing heavy taxation on populations, even though the "ideology" is supposedly staunchly against that, to save their corrupt banking system like it happened in many EU countries for example in order to avoid defaulting on their debts and bringing down French and German banks.

Neoliberals are the corrupt scum serving that system or the morons who actually believe in it as an ideology. The ability of the neoliberal system to co-opt movements, parties and ideologies is also worth noting and so its ability to create distractions or divide the lower classes. And before some smartass accuses me of conspiracy theories, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy I'm saying it's a well oiled machine. The corporate media do their job misinforming, pitting us against each other and omitting information, the politicians do their job screwing the little guy to benefit corporations and banks, the bankers do their job corrupting politicians and creating a "free" market economy they fully control, the CEOs do their jobs corrupting politicians and exploiting the workforce with the help of the aforementioned politicians and so on.

Neoliberalism, historically was a movement of German and Austrian economist/philosophers (Rustow, Mises, Hayek) trying to devise a "third way" between collectivism (in any of its forms being fascism or communism) and laissez faire liberalism. One of its first mottos was "Free Economy, Strong State". These thinkers latter had a critical division but even so, neoliberalism wasn't invented in the USA, and it was originally meant (not solely but also) as a reaction to the free market radicalism with which it's connoted to currently. Today it is used solely as a political swear word, with no value at all other than to try to shut up any meaningful discussion.

 

[rtcn63]

#peakPatriotism

Farage looks like an extra in a porn scene.

 

[Bo-Locks]

It's not about devaluing your economy per se, it's about having a currency which has an accurate valuation for your economy. Greece would have a had a stronger economy if it had never been in the Euro because Greek exports would have been more competitive. You're right there are more problems than that, but it's a very large problem indeed. Equally, Germany's economy would not be as good if it wasn't in the Euro, because it wouldn't be trading using such an undervalued economy. German exports would have been much more expensive and given Germany's export orientation, it's more than a little insensitive to hold up Germany as a paragon of economic competence to the Southern European economies because they've effectively been subsidising Germany that whole time. In practice, the Euro has been a transfer scheme from poorer countries to wealthier ones and especially Germany because the ECB has almost always been influenced most strongly by the Bundesbank.

That's nothing to do with "neoliberalism", though. It's much more to do with nationalism. You can't have monetary union without fiscal union, and German citizens have proved insufficiently European in sentiment to allow for the kind of fiscal transfers necessary.

Could similar arguments be made about the pound and the UK? i.e the pound has been overvalued for a long time because the BoE is mainly influenced by London and less so regions / rest of UK, which makes exports less competitive for rest of UK, and the high value of the pound has been built on poor fundamentals like low productivity?

 

[oti]

Schauble is going all out. He's saying "now is not the time for visions of the future" (of an even closer EU) it's the time for a pragmatic approach. He goes on to say not all 27 members are needed to start with this approach, a core of members can begin and the rest can follow later. And if the EU Commission isn't on board then the Prime Ministers can just bypass it. Also he laments that Brussels takes too long to get things done. Yesh.

He also made clear that his stance on austerity hasn't changed at all.

http://m.heute.de/ZDF/zdfportal/xml/object/44227040

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Neoliberalism is the system invented American economists with the sole purpose of serving corporations and banks. It's basically corporatocracy. Many people have the illusion that the particular system has principles but it doesn't. When the ruling class is threatened for example it has no qualms with imposing heavy taxation on populations, even though the "ideology" is supposedly staunchly against that, to save their corrupt banking system like it happened in many EU countries for example in order to avoid defaulting on their debts and bringing down French and German banks.

Neoliberals are the corrupt scum serving that system or the morons who actually believe in it as an ideology. The ability of the neoliberal system to co-opt movements, parties and ideologies is also worth noting and so its ability to create distractions or divide the lower classes. And before some smartass accuses me of conspiracy theories, I'm not saying it's a conspiracy I'm saying it's a well oiled machine. The corporate media do their job misinforming, pitting us against each other and omitting information, the politicians do their job screwing the little guy to benefit corporations and banks, the bankers do their job corrupting politicians and creating a "free" market economy they fully control, the CEOs do their jobs corrupting politicians and exploiting the workforce with the help of the aforementioned politicians and so on.

Except none of this is true. I have a master's degree in economics, I can assure you that nobody talks about neoliberalism and it is not a branch of economics. Nor was it invented in America. The term first appears in Germany in 1938; where it was used to describe a political ideology and not an economic school. Nor was it a pro-free market term, originally neoliberalism was used to describe "third way" politics that melded free markets and state interventionism, because it recognised that classical liberalism didn't actually tend to lead to greater freedoms. This use of the terminology persists through to the 1960s and even early 1970s, the main neoliberal (against as a political term) theorists are Röpke and Rüstow; the latter being well-remembered for writing a series of rather scorching articles against free market failings.

After the 1970s, the phrase became subject to a backlash because leftists felt that the movement was being co-opted from trying to synthesize socialist and capitalist principles to being a disguise for free-market reforms without upsetting socialists (see Barbara Castle and Denis Healey being tarred with the label). After this point, the word becomes somewhat meaningless. By the 1980s, neoliberal encompasses everything from Thatcher to Peters (see Peters' 1983 article A Neoliberal's Manifesto, where the third part is dedicated to attacking the very corporatocracy you ascribe to neoliberalism). The term is now essentially just a generic pejorative for "any idea I don't approve of", and largely died out in academic use in the early 1990s at the latest. You will look far and wide to find anyone who self-describes as a neoliberal; the term is just hot air.

What you're trying to describe (something like laissez faire fundamentalism) doesn't apply to the European Union in the slightest. The European Union has no independent ideology because all of the constituent parts of the EU (the Council, the Commission, the Parliament, etc) are all dependent on their composition from the states that comprise the EU. The EU's ideology is therefore reflective of these states. The majority of these states are not laissez faire fundamentalists; the closest European state to being as such is the United Kingdom - so you've actually removed one constraining factor on the United Kingdom being more "neoliberal". Congratulations, you ass. I hope an unrestrained Theresa May is just what you wanted.

Finally, the Euro isn't some evil scheme to protect bankers or such nonsense. There are a number of advantages to a currency union, the main three being a reduction in transaction costs (which is an advantage to the consumer, not banks, because banks are the ones charging the transaction costs), no more intercurrency instability (again, pro-consumer, because consumers typically have less time and resources to invest into determining what exchange rates are likely to do in the future than specialized institutions like banks), and price comparison transparency (again, very much pro-consumer not pro-bank).

The downside is that you lose control of monetary policy. This is obviously not intrinsically bad. I very much doubt things would be significantly better for Cornwall if they had monetary sovereignty. However, you need a fiscal union to go with the monetary union - you need to be able to tax areas for where the currency is overvalued to spend in areas where the currency is undervalued (so, as an example, in the UK London is a net contributor and Hull is a net recipient of govt spending, reflecting relative productivity in those areas). The Euro does not have this. If you look at early sentiment regarding the Euro, governments thought you'd need a monetary union in place before you could implement a fiscal union, which is true - it's quite difficult to tax in francs and spend in lira. They also expected that once the monetary union was in place, fiscal union would follow quite shortly. This did not happen, but has nothing to do with "neoliberalism". Rather, it was prevented by us, as the electorate of these national governments, who have been rather sour on the idea, largely because nationalistic sentiment is still relatively high.

This is also the same reason that Germany didn't contribute more to Greece. It had nothing to do with "neoliberalism", and everything to do with the fact Germans (working class Germans, at that, displaying all of the political influence you don't seem to think they should have given "neoliberalism") would have voted her out of office if she tried. The Euro's main failing is that it was born too soon - European sentiment is too weak to put in place the necessary institutions. However, none of this affected us anyway, because the UK was not and never had to become a Eurozone member. So it ends up being an utterly facile reason to vote Leave.

All in all, I think you have only a very basic and limited understanding of political ideology, economics, the workings of the Eurozone, and indeed the entire spectrum of the debate over Europe.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Could similar arguments be made about the pound and the UK? i.e the pound has been overvalued for a long time because the BoE is mainly influenced by London and less so regions / rest of UK, which makes exports less competitive for rest of UK, and the high value of the pound has been built on poor fundamentals like low productivity?

Yes, I think it can be, actually. I've seen a few people argue that the BoE should be moved to York or wherever. Ultimately, though, the BoE does not care about exchange rates in and of themselves, only insofar as they effect inflation. Ultimate responsibility for failure to address productivity disparities rests with the UK govt. In general, though, I think the UK does have a problem with all the major political institutions largely being clustered together in London. Not that it necessarily benefits Londoners as a whole, but the London elite as a distinct group dominate the political and economic machinery of the UK.

 

[grumble]

Except none of this is true. I have a master's degree in economics, I can assure you that nobody talks about neoliberalism and it is not a branch of economics. Nor was it invented in America. The term first appears in Germany in 1938; where it was used to describe a political ideology and not an economic school. Nor was it a pro-free market term, originally neoliberalism was used to describe "third way" politics that melded free markets and state interventionism, because it recognised that classical liberalism didn't actually tend to lead to greater freedoms. This use of the terminology persists through to the 1960s and even early 1970s, the main neoliberal (against as a political term) theorists are Röpke and Rüstow; the latter being well-remembered for writing a series of rather scorching articles against free market failings.

After the 1970s, the phrase became subject to a backlash because leftists felt that the movement was being co-opted from trying to synthesize socialist and capitalist principles to being a disguise for free-market reforms without upsetting socialists (see Barbara Castle and Denis Healey being tarred with the label). After this point, the word becomes somewhat meaningless. By the 1980s, neoliberal encompasses everything from Thatcher to Peters (see Peters' 1983 article A Neoliberal's Manifesto, where the third part is dedicated to attacking the very corporatocracy you ascribe to neoliberalism). The term is now essentially just a generic pejorative for "any idea I don't approve of", and largely died out in academic use in the early 1990s at the latest. You will look far and wide to find anyone who self-describes as a neoliberal; the term is just hot air.

What you're trying to describe (something like laissez faire fundamentalism) doesn't apply to the European Union in the slightest. The European Union has no independent ideology because all of the constituent parts of the EU (the Council, the Commission, the Parliament, etc) are all dependent on their composition from the states that comprise the EU. The EU's ideology is therefore reflective of these states. The majority of these states are not laissez faire fundamentalists; the closest European state to being as such is the United Kingdom - so you've actually removed one constraining factor on the United Kingdom being more "neoliberal". Congratulations, you ass. I hope an unrestrained Theresa May is just what you wanted.

Finally, the Euro isn't some evil scheme to protect bankers or such nonsense. There are a number of advantages to a currency union, the main three being a reduction in transaction costs (which is an advantage to the consumer, not banks, because banks are the ones charging the transaction costs), no more intercurrency instability (again, pro-consumer, because consumers typically have less time and resources to invest into determining what exchange rates are likely to do in the future than specialized institutions like banks), and price comparison transparency (again, very much pro-consumer not pro-bank).

The downside is that you lose control of monetary policy. This is obviously not intrinsically bad. I very much doubt things would be significantly better for Cornwall if they had monetary sovereignty. However, you need a fiscal union to go with the monetary union - you need to be able to tax areas for where the currency is overvalued to spend in areas where the currency is undervalued (so, as an example, in the UK London is a net contributor and Hull is a net recipient of govt spending, reflecting relative productivity in those areas). The Euro does not have this. If you look at early sentiment regarding the Euro, governments thought you'd need a monetary union in place before you could implement a fiscal union, which is true - it's quite difficult to tax in francs and spend in lira. They also expected that once the monetary union was in place, fiscal union would follow quite shortly. This did not happen, but has nothing to do with "neoliberalism". Rather, it was prevented by us, as the electorate of these national governments, who have been rather sour on the idea, largely because nationalistic sentiment is still relatively high.

This is also the same reason that Germany didn't contribute more to Greece. It had nothing to do with "neoliberalism", and everything to do with the fact Germans (working class Germans, at that, displaying all of the political influence you don't seem to think they should have given "neoliberalism") would have voted her out of office if she tried. The Euro's main failing is that it was born too soon - European sentiment is too weak to put in place the necessary institutions. However, none of this affected us anyway, because the UK was not and never had to become a Eurozone member. So it ends up being an utterly facile reason to vote Leave.

All in all, I think you have only a very basic and limited understanding of political ideology, economics, the workings of the Eurozone, and indeed the entire spectrum of the debate over Europe.

I think the poster you responded to will be in the hospital for a while getting his burn treated

 

[inoperativ]

Yes, I think it can be, actually. I've seen a few people argue that the BoE should be moved to York or wherever. Ultimately, though, the BoE does not care about exchange rates in and of themselves, only insofar as they effect inflation. Ultimate responsibility for failure to address productivity disparities rests with the UK govt. In general, though, I think the UK does have a problem with all the major political institutions largely being clustered together in London. Not that it necessarily benefits Londoners as a whole, but the London elite as a distinct group dominate the political and economic machinery of the UK.

This x 1000. No Londoner would give a shit if most of the government bureaucrats were moved to other cities, providing much needed highly skilled jobs outside of the London area and reducing the feeling that the government elite is holed up in a Shard-shaped ivory tower.

This is how things are done in Finland already, don't know about other countries but it's just common sense IMHO.

 

[oti]

I think the poster you responded to will be in the hospital for a while getting his burn treated

Come on. Crab's fantastic post doesn't deserve this stupid internet lingo crap.

 

[Good Job Bob]

snip

Good post. I'm curious what your thoughts are on on the IMF's recent article on neoliberalism?

 

[Corto]

Come on. Crab's fantastic post doesn't deserve this stupid internet lingo crap.

I just have a complaint though. He could have been quicker in typing his because it makes my attempt look mediocre in comparison. hehe

 

[BlastProcessing]

Except none of this is true. I have a master's degree in economics, I can assure you that nobody talks about neoliberalism and it is not a branch of economics. Nor was it invented in America. The term first appears in Germany in 1938; where it was used to describe a political ideology and not an economic school. Nor was it a pro-free market term, originally neoliberalism was used to describe "third way" politics that melded free markets and state interventionism, because it recognised that classical liberalism didn't actually tend to lead to greater freedoms. This use of the terminology persists through to the 1960s and even early 1970s, the main neoliberal (against as a political term) theorists are Röpke and Rüstow; the latter being well-remembered for writing a series of rather scorching articles against free market failings.

After the 1970s, the phrase became subject to a backlash because leftists felt that the movement was being co-opted from trying to synthesize socialist and capitalist principles to being a disguise for free-market reforms without upsetting socialists (see Barbara Castle and Denis Healey being tarred with the label). After this point, the word becomes somewhat meaningless. By the 1980s, neoliberal encompasses everything from Thatcher to Peters (see Peters' 1983 article A Neoliberal's Manifesto, where the third part is dedicated to attacking the very corporatocracy you ascribe to neoliberalism). The term is now essentially just a generic pejorative for "any idea I don't approve of", and largely died out in academic use in the early 1990s at the latest. You will look far and wide to find anyone who self-describes as a neoliberal; the term is just hot air.

What you're trying to describe (something like laissez faire fundamentalism) doesn't apply to the European Union in the slightest. The European Union has no independent ideology because all of the constituent parts of the EU (the Council, the Commission, the Parliament, etc) are all dependent on their composition from the states that comprise the EU. The EU's ideology is therefore reflective of these states. The majority of these states are not laissez faire fundamentalists; the closest European state to being as such is the United Kingdom - so you've actually removed one constraining factor on the United Kingdom being more "neoliberal". Congratulations, you ass. I hope an unrestrained Theresa May is just what you wanted.

Finally, the Euro isn't some evil scheme to protect bankers or such nonsense. There are a number of advantages to a currency union, the main three being a reduction in transaction costs (which is an advantage to the consumer, not banks, because banks are the ones charging the transaction costs), no more intercurrency instability (again, pro-consumer, because consumers typically have less time and resources to invest into determining what exchange rates are likely to do in the future than specialized institutions like banks), and price comparison transparency (again, very much pro-consumer not pro-bank).

The downside is that you lose control of monetary policy. This is obviously not intrinsically bad. I very much doubt things would be significantly better for Cornwall if they had monetary sovereignty. However, you need a fiscal union to go with the monetary union - you need to be able to tax areas for where the currency is overvalued to spend in areas where the currency is undervalued (so, as an example, in the UK London is a net contributor and Hull is a net recipient of govt spending, reflecting relative productivity in those areas). The Euro does not have this. If you look at early sentiment regarding the Euro, governments thought you'd need a monetary union in place before you could implement a fiscal union, which is true - it's quite difficult to tax in francs and spend in lira. They also expected that once the monetary union was in place, fiscal union would follow quite shortly. This did not happen, but has nothing to do with "neoliberalism". Rather, it was prevented by us, as the electorate of these national governments, who have been rather sour on the idea, largely because nationalistic sentiment is still relatively high.

This is also the same reason that Germany didn't contribute more to Greece. It had nothing to do with "neoliberalism", and everything to do with the fact Germans (working class Germans, at that, displaying all of the political influence you don't seem to think they should have given "neoliberalism") would have voted her out of office if she tried. The Euro's main failing is that it was born too soon - European sentiment is too weak to put in place the necessary institutions. However, none of this affected us anyway, because the UK was not and never had to become a Eurozone member. So it ends up being an utterly facile reason to vote Leave.

All in all, I think you have only a very basic and limited understanding of political ideology, economics, the workings of the Eurozone, and indeed the entire spectrum of the debate over Europe.

Thanks for this super helpful overview.

 

[oti]

I just have a complaint though. He could have been quicker in typing his because it makes my attempt look mediocre in comparison. hehe

He has a Master's Degree in Economics and can express himself clearly. We should just stop posting. Ain't getting better than that.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Good post. I'm curious what your thoughts are on on the IMF's recent article on neoliberalism?

There's nothing I really disagree with. It's not a very controversial article, it's the closest you can get to the academic consensus presented in layman's terms.

EDIT: I only got the masters a few days ago guys, I just wanted to take it for a spin. My graduation ceremony is in two weeks!