- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,735
- 19,581
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
Greece
- Thread starter JoondalupJ
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 27, 2014
- 34,227
- 28,859
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Recently on Real Time with Bill Maher they discussed inaccurate polling with the UK and Israel elections. Apparently the decline of landlines and the rise of mobiles and people not answering private/unknown numbers has made it harder.
OXI.
The 99% have spoken.
F*** You Merkel.
F*** you Samaras, Papandreou, etc.
This might bring pain, this might make things worse for a period of time, in fact it will, but...Greece has stood up for it self, and wont bow down to Berlin's demands. This whole mess was handled badly from the start, by both sides. The people have had enough, and now they've had their say. They voted in Syriza, as a protest, to send a message..that in the real world the measures taken aren't working and wont work..nobody listened. Well listen now, because if you didn't understand that your austerity wasn't and would never work, then here's a big * YOU to your plans.
Now, the EU will either come up with an alternative to ensure Greece stays in, or Greece leaves, then Cyprus follows, then the resistance parties across the Mediterranean see that it's possible, and perhaps gain enough momentum to stand up as well.
I'm not for a Euro exit. What I hope is that this spreads to the rest of the the Mediterranean, and the Euro/EU is forced to change for the better..or a southern union is formed. Because a system that benefits the few and strangles the majority is not a good thing.
Merkel can take her economic slavery and shove it up her fat ass.
The 99% have spoken.
F*** You Merkel.
F*** you Samaras, Papandreou, etc.
This might bring pain, this might make things worse for a period of time, in fact it will, but...Greece has stood up for it self, and wont bow down to Berlin's demands. This whole mess was handled badly from the start, by both sides. The people have had enough, and now they've had their say. They voted in Syriza, as a protest, to send a message..that in the real world the measures taken aren't working and wont work..nobody listened. Well listen now, because if you didn't understand that your austerity wasn't and would never work, then here's a big * YOU to your plans.
Now, the EU will either come up with an alternative to ensure Greece stays in, or Greece leaves, then Cyprus follows, then the resistance parties across the Mediterranean see that it's possible, and perhaps gain enough momentum to stand up as well.
I'm not for a Euro exit. What I hope is that this spreads to the rest of the the Mediterranean, and the Euro/EU is forced to change for the better..or a southern union is formed. Because a system that benefits the few and strangles the majority is not a good thing.
Merkel can take her economic slavery and shove it up her fat ass.
Last edited:
True.
However, the system in Greece with a public sector the size of France's(compare the populations to see how ridiculous and out of control it had gotten), was created not by the people of Greece, but by the political establishment.
A system of corruption and government handouts was created, with the backing of the Western powers. If anyone thinks that Germany etc did not know what state the Greek economy and budget were really in when they joined the Eurozone, they are living in lala land.
German, French, American, etc corporations and firms were heavily involved in the corruption in Greece, and by extension so were those governments.
That's not to say they are to blame for the situation existing to begin with. The status quo in Greece, with corrupt politicians who are basically puppets and some like Papandreou CIA agents/puppets, is a good thing for Western governments. Because these politicians serve their interests and help them acomplish their agendas and further their interests.
Hence why the media campaign has been against a NO vote, with doomsday scenarios talked about by EU leaders. Because if the Yes vote got up, then there would have likely been a return to the old guard with the likes of Samaras returning to power.
A Syriza government that argues with Europe and says no to things is not beneficial for their interests/agenda. A government lead by Samaras or that CIA clown Papandreou, that says yes, and asks for more debt..sorry, bailouts..is beneficial for their interests/agenda.
And that's what's at the core of this referendum.
The Greek people have had enough.
They want change. They are using their democratic rights and freedoms to make their voice heard.
BurningBright
Debutant
The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it
David Graeber
The Bank of England's dose of honesty throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window
Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity
David Graeber
The Bank of England's dose of honesty throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window
Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity
I think its more because polling companies will be ultimately judged on their last poll before an election. There are huge reputation and commercial risks if they get it wrong, especially if they are the only company to get it wrong. The polls all seem to come together to be almost in unison in the final stretch, even if their own internal numbers are completely different to other pollsters. Ultimately they'd prefer to be wrong together, than to take a risk and back their own numbers, be an outlier and potentially get it wrong solo.
I think in the US they called it herding.
Greece will stay in the euro but i think they are gonna accept a worse package and this PM will be gone soon. It was the greek people who voted no dont know why the are making tsipras some kind of hero
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
They did do due diligence and the result was that Greece didn't meet the criteria economically, Germany vetoed the concerns because of the cold war and the rise of the communism party which had closer ties with USSR, they threatened to leave NATO due to them turning a blind eye to Turkish aggression.
So, it wasn't a surprise. The extent of their debt problem was also due to it being hidden from the Greek people by Goldman Sachs and previous right wing governments via the use of a derivative scheme, similar to the fiasco that caused the GFC.
Should the people pay for mistakes that they were not consciously supporting? A significant amount of the burden should fall on institutions who lend money and the third parties that finance it like Goldman Sachs, if a bank keeps giving you credit on your credit cards to the point you spiral out in debt in a state in which repayment is excessively difficult and impacts your quality of life then you are well within your rights to default on that debt, that risk that anyone might default is built into the interest rate in which financial institutions lend out money, they will lost a considerable amount of money on Greece, but over the many decades of their existence, if they are responsible the risks and the defaults greatly outweigh these losses.
Greece should default and they should leave the EU, if they kicked out or not. In 5-10 years they will be in a significantly better place than where they are now, or where they will be under regressive EU austerity. Their economy has shrunk 25% over the last 2 years forcing through these austerity measures and their debt is rising in proportion to their GDP, the EU is putting them on a road to nowhere and the Greek people have no other option but to vote no. The people who voted yes are just afraid of change, afraid of uncertainty.
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,892
- 6,917
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
It was a vote of which option looks worse not which is the better solution and thankfully for Greece they chose the rightway.
Those who voted Yes might well have a large contingent who have already moved their money out of Greece so the collapse of the economy just makes it cheaper for them to continue to live in Greece.
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
We will head down the same path if we accept the TPP, these free trade agreements we have been signing have been detrimental to the health of our economy. Our governments have continually sold out our best interests for that of foreign countries for some perceived benefit which never eventuates or only benefits a small minority.
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,892
- 6,917
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
This is the problem in having an entrenched two party system, they become so powerful that they end up in their own circle and those with access to that circle get what they want. We haven't signed a decent free trade agreement since the colonies agreed to one between themselves. A time will come when there is hell to pay and those whinging about tax rates now will be realising how good they had it. We have almost nothing left to sell and the so called foreign investment review board is nothing more than a rubber stamp for overseas investors.
I can honestly see a time in the not to distant future where there will be the nationalisation of assets and foreign companies will be told to bugger off.
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
You can't have free trade when one nation utilises slave labour and another does not, you are just inviting to destroy your entire manufacturing industry.
Australia should have enforced a wage tarrif for goods and services, that will force companies to pay the same rate as our minimum wage to foreign workers or be taxed the difference so it does not destroy the labour market here.
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,892
- 6,917
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
Whilst it would be right, no chance as then the foreign multinationals who line the pockets of the political parties would stop donating.
The fact that we gave up our tariffs overnight in FTA and the other countries didn't shows how hollow they really are. We should've said if you want a FTA then it is all in or not in at all.
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
It is expensive to mine and has restricted use, like oil, if you pump more oil out all you do is lower the price.
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
That is the point, our political system is corrupt. Our government does not make the tough decisions or the right decisions very often.
Look at Howard, Asio told him their intelligence about the American WMDs in Iraq reports were bogus and he still took our country to war, he is a war criminal and he should stand trial, the Americans USED us and our previously good reputation to legitimise a war.
The problem isn't government, the problem is people who let governments get away with it.
Taylor
Community Leader
Tas
Premium Platinum
Veteran
10k Posts
30k Posts
North Melbourne - 2022 Kaitlyn Ashmore and Aileen Gilroy Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2022 Aaron Hall and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
North Melbourne AFLW - 2021 Aileen Gilroy and Kaitlyn Ashmore Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2021 Taylor Garner and Flynn Perez Player Sponsor
TheBrownDog
- Dec 23, 2002
- 62,054
- 60,118
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- There can be only one...
Sorry, it is hard to tell on BF, I have to assume people are being serious due to the amount of stupidity we are exposed to on a regular basis here.
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,892
- 6,917
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
Worst of all is that the cost to the taxpayer for this action made the wastage of the pink bats and schools programs look like small. War with Iraq has been a complete failure on every single measurable scale. Democracy doesn't exist, living standards are now amongst the worst in the world, corruption is worse, law and order has got worse and now a large portion of the country is occupied by radicalised fundamentalists, who are beheading people for fun. No doubt John Howard will still think it achieved something. Afghanistan is similar, some progress has been made, but the Taliban knew that the foreign forces would eventually leave and then they will slowly takeover the country again. No foreign body has been able to control the tribal chiefs in Afghanistan since Alexander the Great, many have tried, many far more organised and power and all have failed. The British in the late 1800s couldn't do it, the Russian army couldn't do it and neither could the western forces, they got control of small areas but never had effective control of the country.
Instead of selling it we should be building a nuclear power industry to become less reliant on foreign oil. We have the resources, we have the capabilities, what we lack is the political will to do it.
That is what we should be doing with our uranium reserves.
And that highlights part of the problem, politicians and who they are really serving.
Just like in Greece, where the politicians were serving anything but the people they were supposed to be representing and governing, the same is true here in Australia.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/...-trade-agreement-could-be-worse-tpp-meet-rcep
The Greek people have said no to the latest "offer".
Any government that now accepts something worse wont last much longer after accepting a worse deal.
For now the people are using their democratic rights and freedoms. If they keep getting pushed, eventually that final straw will break, and then those politicians wont be able to get on a flight out of Greece back to their masters fast enough.
