Piketty: Germany Has Never Paid Its Debts

[Norgy]

Of course it is ideological this is a political struggle over if individual nations are going to act in accordance with the interests of the union or attempt to swindle the others. Can the financial union function in a confederation setting? Can there be any trust here? The money is kind of beside the point. I think it goes both ways.

Governments should act in the interests of the governed.  If the interests of "the union" are the interests of the governed, the government should also serve the interests of "the union," but only then.  Talk about "swindl[ing] the others" is silly; the people who got swindled here are mostly the Greek citizens themselves (and only somewhat the citizens of the rest of Europe). Now I agree that the Greek citizens are not blameless, because they bought the swindle pretty readily for a long time, but neither are the citizens in most of the rest of Europe, who were also tolerant of the banks' end of the swindle.

As I have said, the best solution here is for Greece to exit the Euro (but not the EU) and get some breathing space and motivation for reform.  If Grexit is a disaster for Greece, it's still better than the disaster of staying, and if it proves a boon to the Greeks and stimulates and Italian or Spanish desire to do the same, that's a win as well, because if the people of Italy or Spain are better off outside the Eurozone, their governments shouldn't work to keep them in.

The interests of "the union" should not be a consideration.

Well said.

[Martinus]

You have an interesting definition of "swindle," then.  Might want to check to see if it isn't hampering your ability to communicate.

Nonsense it completely applies.

My point was that you should not only avoid claiming it as the problem, you should eschew calling it a problem.  There is nothing whatsoever problematic about a government serving the genuine interests of the governed, even at the expense of the interests of some non-governmental body or organization.

Well it can be a problem and be problematic because there are other people in the world that are not governed by that government.

Now normally we expect all the countries in the world to squabble without regards to each others interests but this is not that scenario. This 'organization' is a pact, a trust, an agreement where that nation is supposed to sacrifice some of its interests for the freely entered into agreement. So say a NATO member letting its military rot away is swindling its allies by doing something selfish for its benefit while taking advantage of the trust of the agreement. It is a con job. Similar dishonest and selfish manipulations can be done in any sort of alliance or trade pact or even a confederation. It is why we have a federal government managing interstate commerce.

Not to mention that fact that it may be to the governed's benefit to enslave people or conquer a neighboring nation. That can be problematic as well.

I think Greeks' interests actually coincide with that of the EU - Germany is the one working towards a solution that would ultimately lead to the EU's fragmentation.

The problem is that the EU was originally conceived as an exchange - it opened new markets for rich countries like Germany and the UK, but the trade-off was the obligation to help poorer countries, whether in the form of aid, or by taking their workers etc. Unfortunately, after the crisis, the rich countries have essentially forgot about that agreement and started to act egoistically while continuing to reap their side of the benefits (this is visible in both the attitude of Germany and the UK, though, obviously, each expresses it in a different manner).

The EU will die if egoism of the rich triumphs - because then countries like Greece or Poland really have no interest in staying in.

This is the point grumbler is making - Greek government has no legal or moral duty to serve the interests of Germany over its own people's.

[Norgy]

In 1994, when we said "no", a lot of the criticism against the EU from the left was that it was a rich man's club. With almost all of Europe inside the EU, that kind of argument is invalid.
However, from a very selfish point of view, I'd vote no this time around because I don't feel like paying for Sothern Europe's inability to have nice things.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

However, from a very selfish point of view, I'd vote no this time around because I don't feel like paying for Sothern Europe's inability to have nice things.

it's not selfish to not want your taxmoney disappearing in a bottomless hole. On the contrary: taxmoney should not be wasted. And shoveling money to places that don't (want to) reform is waste. It can be used elsewhere.

[Razgovory]

We had similar reservations about the Marshall Plan.

[Norgy]

We had similar reservations about the Marshall Plan.

Actually, I only think grumbler was born back then.

[grumbler]

Well it can be a problem and be problematic because there are other people in the world that are not governed by that government.

Governments are not obliged to serve the interests of those governed by other governments; it is up to the other government to serve those interests.  In fact, I would argue it is immoral to serve the interests of foreigners at the cost of the genuine interests of one's own governed. 

Now normally we expect all the countries in the world to squabble without regards to each others interests but this is not that scenario. This 'organization' is a pact, a trust, an agreement where that nation is supposed to sacrifice some of its interests for the freely entered into agreement. So say a NATO member letting its military rot away is swindling its allies by doing something selfish for its benefit while taking advantage of the trust of the agreement. It is a con job. Similar dishonest and selfish manipulations can be done in any sort of alliance or trade pact or even a confederation. It is why we have a federal government managing interstate commerce.

I disagree again.  A pact is useful so long as it serves the legitimate interests of the people of the nations maintaining that pact.  Once the pact becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right (and duty) of the government to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new pact, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect the safety and happiness of those they govern.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that pacts long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that nations are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the pacts to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce their interests, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such pacts, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Not to mention that fact that it may be to the governed's benefit to enslave people or conquer a neighboring nation. That can be problematic as well.

If it is in the genuine interests of the governed that the state be conquered, the government has the obligation to conquer them, neighboring or not.  That is less problematic than willingly allowing the genuine interests of the governed to be harmed.

[jimmy olsen]

Of course it is ideological this is a political struggle over if individual nations are going to act in accordance with the interests of the union or attempt to swindle the others. Can the financial union function in a confederation setting? Can there be any trust here? The money is kind of beside the point. I think it goes both ways.

Governments should act in the interests of the governed.  If the interests of "the union" are the interests of the governed, the government should also serve the interests of "the union," but only then.  Talk about "swindl[ing] the others" is silly; the people who got swindled here are mostly the Greek citizens themselves (and only somewhat the citizens of the rest of Europe). Now I agree that the Greek citizens are not blameless, because they bought the swindle pretty readily for a long time, but neither are the citizens in most of the rest of Europe, who were also tolerant of the banks' end of the swindle.

As I have said, the best solution here is for Greece to exit the Euro (but not the EU) and get some breathing space and motivation for reform.  If Grexit is a disaster for Greece, it's still better than the disaster of staying, and if it proves a boon to the Greeks and stimulates and Italian or Spanish desire to do the same, that's a win as well, because if the people of Italy or Spain are better off outside the Eurozone, their governments shouldn't work to keep them in.

The interests of "the union" should not be a consideration.

So, once the Union stopped acting in the interests of the southern states, seccession was the right thing to do?

[Agelastus]

Of course it is ideological this is a political struggle over if individual nations are going to act in accordance with the interests of the union or attempt to swindle the others. Can the financial union function in a confederation setting? Can there be any trust here? The money is kind of beside the point. I think it goes both ways.

Governments should act in the interests of the governed.  If the interests of "the union" are the interests of the governed, the government should also serve the interests of "the union," but only then.  Talk about "swindl[ing] the others" is silly; the people who got swindled here are mostly the Greek citizens themselves (and only somewhat the citizens of the rest of Europe). Now I agree that the Greek citizens are not blameless, because they bought the swindle pretty readily for a long time, but neither are the citizens in most of the rest of Europe, who were also tolerant of the banks' end of the swindle.

As I have said, the best solution here is for Greece to exit the Euro (but not the EU) and get some breathing space and motivation for reform.  If Grexit is a disaster for Greece, it's still better than the disaster of staying, and if it proves a boon to the Greeks and stimulates and Italian or Spanish desire to do the same, that's a win as well, because if the people of Italy or Spain are better off outside the Eurozone, their governments shouldn't work to keep them in.

The interests of "the union" should not be a consideration.

So, once the Union stopped acting in the interests of the southern states, seccession was the right thing to do?

Substitute "States" for "Nations" in the second paragraph of Grumbler's post above yours. It's interesting how it reads then with particular reference to the USA.

[Iormlund]

So, once the Union stopped acting in the interests of the southern states, seccession was the right thing to do?

I'd argue that the Union stopped acting in the interests of the slaveowner minority.

[Martinus]

Pretty much. It was in the interest of the Southern slave owning elite to leave - not in the interest of the people.

[Razgovory]

Grumbler is just spouting nonsense.  In his world dishonesty is a moral imperative and no country should abide by it's obligations if it can cheat.

[LaCroix]

@iorm & mart. given the importance of slavery to the southern economies, protecting slavery (at that time) served those states' best interests. maybe not in the long run, but everyone suffers if you knock out a society's major economic system.

Substitute "States" for "Nations" in the second paragraph of Grumbler's post above yours. It's interesting how it reads then with particular reference to the USA.

i don't think this comparison works because, unfortunately, the EU is not yet integrated enough to allow such a comparison. the EU government needs more control over its members to properly make that comparison. right now, as grumbler indicated, the EU is an organization and not a nation. until the EU states choose to integrate further, why would they have the same obligations as US states?

[Razgovory]

@iorm & mart. given the importance of slavery to the southern economies, protecting slavery (at that time) served those states' best interests. maybe not in the long run, but everyone suffers if you knock out a society's major economic system.

I believe that is the standard von Misises libertarian stance, yes.

[grumbler]

@iorm & mart. given the importance of slavery to the southern economies, protecting slavery (at that time) served those states' best interests. maybe not in the long run, but everyone suffers if you knock out a society's major economic system.

Slavery served only the interests of the landed elite, and wasn't important at all to the southern economies.  Cotton (and tobacco and sugar, to lesser extents) was, but there are no natural laws that say cotton can only be grown by slaves.  Indeed, all of these crops is still grown today, 150 years after slavery was abolished, and were grown sans slaves in the South and elsewhere in the world in the antebellum years.

The South seceded because the Industrial Revolution threatened the interests of the landed elite.  Political power in the South was based on economic power, and that was based on inheriting slaves (it was far too expensive to set up new plantations and buy enough slaves to run them; one had to essentially inherit them).  When the IR made it clear that "new men" would eventually be able to become rich (it had already happened in the North, and was happening in the South to some extent), this threatened the political power of the landed elite and they took measure to disassociate with the North (and industrialization) while they still could.  Slavery was just the means by which the Southern elites had created and maintained their political power.  The South was fighting against industrialization more than "for" slavery.

Clearly, a war against industrialization isn't in the genuine interests of the typical southerner.