This looks really bad.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703525704575061172926967984.html
QuoteHow Much Does a Grecian Urn?
Greece's dysfunctional economy is now at the heart of a rescue effort that could be disastrous for the entire continent—and the rest of the world.
By SIMON JOHNSON and PETER BOONE
Associated Press
Greek firefighters protest government spending cuts on Jan. 29.
Plutus, the Greek god of wealth, did not have an easy life. As the myth goes, Plutus wanted to grant riches only to the "the just, the wise, the men of ordered life." Zeus blinded him out of jealousy of mankind (and envy of the good), leaving Plutus to indiscriminately distribute his favors.
Modern-day Greece may be just and wise, but it certainly has not had an ordered life. As a result, the great opportunity and wealth bestowed by European integration has been largely squandered. And lower interest rates over the past decade—brought down to German levels through Greece being allowed, rather generously, into the euro zone—led to little more than further deficits and a dangerous buildup of government debt.
Now Plutus wants his money back. Europe is entering unprepared into a serious economic crisis—and the nascent global recovery could easily collapse due to the unsustainable and Ponzi-like buildup of government debt in weaker countries.
At the end of the G7 meeting in Canada last weekend, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told reporters, "I just want to underscore they made it clear to us—they, the European authorities—that they will manage this [Greek debt crisis] with great care."
But the Europeans have not been careful so far. The issues for troubled euro zone countries are straightforward: Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (known to the financial markets, and not in a polite way, as the PIIGS) had varying degrees of foreign- and bank credit-financed rapid expansions over the past decade. In fall 2008, these bubbles collapsed.
As custodian of their shared currency, the European Central Bank responded by quietly opening lifelines to all these countries, effectively buying government bonds through special credit windows. Europe's periphery was fragile but surviving on this intravenous line of credit from the ECB until a few weeks ago, when it suddenly became apparent that Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the ECB, and his German backers were finally lining up to cut Greece off from that implicit subsidy. The Germans have become tired of supporting countries that do not, to their minds, try hard enough. Investors naturally flew from Greek debt—Greece's debt yields rose, and its banking system verged near collapse as investors and savers ran from the country.
But it's not just about Greece any more. Thursday's European Union summit ended with vague assurances of mutual support but did not fundamentally change the financial markets' assessment. Other countries can also be cut off from easy ECB funding, so worries have spread through the euro zone to Spain and Portugal. Ireland and Italy are also up for hostile reconsideration by the markets, and Austria and Belgium may not be far behind. If these problems are not addressed quickly and effectively, Europe's economy will be derailed—with serious, if hard to quantify, implications for the rest of the world.
Germany and France are cooking up a belated support package for Greece, but they have made it abundantly clear that Greece must slash public sector wages and other spending; the Greek trade unions get this and are in the streets. If Greece (and the other troubled countries) still had their own currencies, it would all be a lot easier. Just as in the U.K. since 2008, their exchange rates would depreciate sharply. This would lower the cost of labor, making them competitive again (remember Asia after 1997-'98) while also inflating asset prices and helping to refloat borrowers who are underwater on their mortgages and other debts. It would undoubtedly hurt the Germans and the French, who would suffer from less competitiveness—but when you are in deep trouble, who cares?
Since these struggling countries share the euro, run by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, their currencies cannot fall in this fashion. So they are left with the need to massively curtail demand, lower wages and reduce the public sector workforce. The last time we saw this kind of precipitate fiscal austerity—when nations were tied to the gold standard—it contributed directly to the onset of the Great Depression in the 1930s.
The International Monetary Fund is supposed to lend to countries in trouble, to cushion the blow of crisis and to offer a form of international circuit breaker when everything looks fragile. The idea is not to prevent necessary adjustments—for example, in the form of budget deficit reduction—but to spread those out over time, to restore confidence, and to serve as an external seal of approval on a government's credibility.
Despite the fact that the IMF was created after World War II essentially as a U.S.-Western European partnership, and despite the fact that Europe has strong representation at the fund and has always chosen its top leader, in this instance the fund has been reduced to not-entirely-helpful kibitzing from the sidelines.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the fund's managing director, said recently on French radio that the fund stands ready to help Greece. But he knows this is wishful thinking.
"Going to the IMF" brings with it a great deal of stigma; just ask the Asian countries that had to borrow from the fund during their crises of the 1990s. And many in Europe view the fund as an American-influenced institution—located three blocks from the White House for a reason—that would be invading Europe's territory.
In addition, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has serious personal reasons to push the IMF away. Mr. Strauss-Kahn is a serious potential challenger in France's upcoming elections; Mr. Sarkozy would hate to see the IMF play a statesman-like role on his home turf.
Chancellor Angela Merkel, currently maneuvering to ensure a German is the next head at the ECB, is also concerned. The IMF might take the position that ECB policies have been overly contractionary—resulting in a strong euro and very low inflation—and not appropriate for member countries in the midst of a financial collapse. If the IMF were to support Europe's weaker economies, this would challenge the prevailing ideology among Frankfurt-dominated policy makers.
Nations outside Europe, such as the U.S., are naturally reluctant to get involved. Sending Greece to the IMF would result in some international "burden sharing," as it would be IMF resources, from its member countries around the world, on the line, rather than just European Union funds. Is the U.S. really willing to share the burden through the IMF?
And how would the Chinese, for example, react if such a proposition came to the IMF? No industrialized democracy is in a particular hurry to find out.
What is the solution? One possibility is to recognize that the current euro zone might not make sense. This is not a decision that anyone will take this week, but it may well be the fast-approaching reality.
If Europe really does want to save this version of the euro zone from collapse, what would constitute substantive steps?
First, the EU leadership should recognize that, despite all its warts, the IMF has unique expertise in designing programs that pull countries back from the brink of financial collapse. The latest indications are that the IMF could be brought in as "technical assistance plus" to comb through the books of troubled countries, work with the governments to determine what macroeconomic programs are needed, and then monitor the conditionality of such programs while reporting back to the EU (and, more informally, to the IMF executive board).
These programs would involve some upfront fiscal austerity to bring nations on a solvent path, but perhaps not as much as in the Franco-German bilateral-bailout scenario.
Second, Europe must soon create a multilateral funding system that ensured adequate finance was available to each nation that adhered to these conditional programs. This could be pooled resources of EU nations, and could be supplemented with IMF financing.
Relying on money directly from France or Germany is unwise. Finding a robust deal directly between hard-pressed French and German taxpayers and Greek public sector trade unions will be difficult. German voters, in particular, are fed up with subsidizing other Europeans—who they feel, with some justification, have not made the adjustments they promised when the euro was founded. Greek civil servants, on the other hand, are already pushing back hard against what they are framing as unwarranted German intervention and harshness.
The Europeans will experience firsthand what the IMF has long known. When you ride to the rescue of a financially embattled nation, your arrival is appreciated for about 20 minutes. Then people become embarrassed, resentful and even angry.
Third, the European Central Bank needs to adjust its policies, lowering interest rates further and allowing higher inflation throughout the currency union. If such looser money policies are not palatable to the Germanic core, then Berlin/Frankfurt should get on with the task of admitting that the euro zone itself is a failure.
Finally, if the troubled countries cannot adhere to the conditionality attached to their lifelines, the European Union needs a graceful way out. They need "living wills"—plans for countries to exit from the euro zone. The mere existence of such living wills could lead to serious complications—perhaps inviting further speculative attacks—but failing to prepare would be completely irresponsible.
Frankly, it would be a disaster for weaker euro zone countries to leave the bloc. Exiting countries would need to rewrite all their contracts in terms of new currencies, converting as many liabilities and assets as possible into those, and then manage a new monetary policy. There would be legal challenges in international courts to rewritten contracts—some of which would certainly constitute default. Building trust in any new currency is always difficult. But a German exit from the euro zone, in a huff, cannot be ruled out—although its consequences could be equally chaotic.
Even following Thursday's EU summit, an orderly resolution of these problems seems unlikely. The Germans will push for draconian cuts to Greece's government spending and public sector wages but they won't budge on relatively tight monetary policy and the overly strong euro—and they definitely won't agree to loosen their own (German) fiscal policy.
Ireland is already cutting hard. Such fiscal austerity leads to double-digit declines in GDP, and risks massive political revolts. Ireland's banks are today probably insolvent. Who can afford to repay their mortgages when wages are falling and unemployment rising? Irish house prices continue to speed downward. This is not an example of a "careful" solution—it is a nation in a financial death spiral.
Other EU countries will lobby for a continuation of the status quo. They would prefer the ECB keep lending to the periphery, and the problems be pushed off for another day. This too is no solution.
For now Europe will try to muddle through. Greece will promise a pound of flesh, hoping not to pay, and other nations will be spared with promises of continued financing—but just for now.
Financial markets know that this makes no sense, hence the "largest ever" short euro positions, betting on a further decline of the currency. If one country must make a substantial and painful fiscal adjustment, eventually the rest will follow. The implication for bondholders is obvious: Edge towards the door. Bond yields will stay high or creep up, until the next wave of financial crisis and contagion. The problems could easily jump beyond Europe; any sovereign with shaky finances can be hauled before the harsh court of international creditor opinion.
The Obama administration should not recuse itself from these problems. The U.S. must press Europe to act in a way that supports the broader global economy. We should encourage an orderly resolution to problems in Europe, and press the Europeans to bring in the IMF in an appropriate fashion. The U.S. must stop relying on Europe to be "careful," and instead cooperate assertively to help reduce the risk of further collapse in Europe.
American leaders must also address problems at home. Unless and until the U.S. puts in place a plausible process to take its own government debt off an explosive path—for example, through an independent but Congress-backed fiscal commission of some kind, with everything on the table—we are vulnerable to the same kind of debt dynamics that now plague parts of Europe.
This is not a call for immediate fiscal austerity; that is the path back to the 1930s. But no country can go on issuing your debt without consequence when the buyers declare, "Enough!" In the case of the U.K. and the U.S., the macro situation remains stable only as long as foreigners buy and hold our government debt. This is a major economic and national security risk.
Financial markets are telling us the euro zone is under threat, but the real message is much broader: Unsustainable debt dynamics can undermine us all.
—Simon Johnson is a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute and former chief economist of the IMF. Peter Boone, a research associate at the London School of Economics's Center for Economic Performance, is a principal in Salute Capital Management Ltd.
As much as I would like it, we can't really let them crash and burn. French and German banks together have like $100 billion exposure to the Greek market, so unless we want to bail out a few more of our banks, we have to bail out Greece.
That said, I am all for draconian measures. They cheated us when they entered and frankly I don't want to give Greek civil servants a single Euro. Germany is rather strained and has bad public finances as well.
They won't default and even if they had any more than a little local difficulty they'll be bailed out.
In hindsight, wasn't it kind of dumb to institute one currency over a bunch of economies whose needs may be in conflict with each other?
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2010, 10:59:48 PM
In hindsight, wasn't it kind of dumb to institute one currency over a bunch of economies whose needs may be in conflict with each other?
So far the advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages for everyone involved.
If the euro is collapsing, what does that mean for the dollar, which sucks against the euro?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 12, 2010, 11:23:10 PM
If the euro is collapsing, what does that mean for the dollar, which sucks against the euro?
It buys more euros?
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2010, 10:59:48 PM
In hindsight, wasn't it kind of dumb to institute one currency over a bunch of economies whose needs may be in conflict with each other?
In hindsight? That this day would come was accepted by everyone involved in the process. Frankly, when the suggestion was made that greece should be forced to wait until its financial house was in order before she was allowed to join the Euro zone, it was pointed out that Greece's economic house would never be in order. So, rather than refusing to allow Greece in, the Euro leaders of the day just accepted the fact that one day, the chickens would come home to roost.
Rather like the US leadership's policy on Social Security: there is a financially smart but politically dumb way to handle it, and a politically smart but financially dumb way to deal with it. They chose smart politics, and closed their eyes to the problem.
Quote from: jamesww on February 12, 2010, 11:12:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2010, 10:59:48 PM
In hindsight, wasn't it kind of dumb to institute one currency including a bunch of mediterranean economies whose needs may be in conflict with each other?
fixed that.
:lol: Uh, that would be "no, you didn't." You took a perfectly valid question and "fixed" it into gibberish. What does "one currency
including a bunch of mediterranean economies" mean? Currencies and economies are apples and sailplanes.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2010, 11:26:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2010, 10:59:48 PM
In hindsight, wasn't it kind of dumb to institute one currency over a bunch of economies whose needs may be in conflict with each other?
In hindsight? That this day would come was accepted by everyone involved in the process. Frankly, when the suggestion was made that greece should be forced to wait until its financial house was in order before she was allowed to join the Euro zone, it was pointed out that Greece's economic house would never be in order. So, rather than refusing to allow Greece in, the Euro leaders of the day just accepted the fact that one day, the chickens would come home to roost.
Rather like the US leadership's policy on Social Security: there is a financially smart but politically dumb way to handle it, and a politically smart but financially dumb way to deal with it. They chose smart politics, and closed their eyes to the problem.
Yeah, but Greece is small and irrelevant. The euro government in fiscal distress that actually matters is Spain.
Glad we stayed out.
Greeks are fucking boylovers and fiscal liberals. Nuke them.
Interesting tidbit about the Irish economy.
Quote from: The Brain on February 13, 2010, 03:18:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2010, 03:15:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 13, 2010, 02:42:59 AM
Quote from: katmai on February 13, 2010, 02:40:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 13, 2010, 02:35:32 AM
Nuke them.
That's your solution to everything!
Bon Jovi deserved it and you know it.
Are you know wanted, dead or alive?
You give spelling a bad name.
^_^
Quote from: The Brain on February 13, 2010, 03:18:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2010, 03:15:43 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 13, 2010, 02:42:59 AM
Quote from: katmai on February 13, 2010, 02:40:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 13, 2010, 02:35:32 AM
Nuke them.
That's your solution to everything!
Bon Jovi deserved it and you know it.
Are you know wanted, dead or alive?
You give spelling a bad name.
Brilliant. :lol:
Greece makes a tiny percentage of the Euro economies. Even if they vanished from the face of the Earth the Euro should be alright.
The Germans will have to stump up the cash, as usual :mad:
Anyway, there's an important lesson for Germans and French here too, though I doubt they are interested in listening.
If they keep managing the ECB as if it were their own, these things are bound to happen. If many countries are heavily indebted now is precisely because the two giants kept interest rates artificially low for the last decade when it was their economies that needed to make sacrifices (remember who broke the stability pact first). It is only natural that people borrowed like crazy.
Well, the euro is (was?) effectively the Dmark; so it has the sort of interest rate regime that works for the Germans. More profligate peoples were bound to borrow under that regime. But what would have happened if the euro had effectively been the peseta or drachma? A whole set of other problems......
What a ridiculously alarmist headline. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2010, 10:59:48 PM
In hindsight, wasn't it kind of dumb to institute one currency over a bunch of economies whose needs may be in conflict with each other?
How's that? Don't US states have their own economies that often are in conflict with each other too?
Wouldn't like to be the Greek PM right now; getting told-off like a naughty schoolboy by a bunch of Germans :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:12:08 AM
What a ridiculously alarmist headline. :lol:
The more alarmist the headline, the more replies one gets. The internet is very simple that way.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 13, 2010, 05:21:04 AM
Wouldn't like to be the Greek PM right now; getting told-off like a naughty schoolboy by a bunch of Germans :lol:
The Germans should have never left. :ph34r:
Quote from: Iormlund on February 13, 2010, 05:06:15 AM
Anyway, there's an important lesson for Germans and French here too, though I doubt they are interested in listening.
If they keep managing the ECB as if it were their own, these things are bound to happen. If many countries are heavily indebted now is precisely because the two giants kept interest rates artificially low for the last decade when it was their economies that needed to make sacrifices (remember who broke the stability pact first). It is only natural that people borrowed like crazy.
You are right, we are not interested in listening. Any other monetary policy is not really acceptable for Germany.
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:13:38 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2010, 10:59:48 PM
In hindsight, wasn't it kind of dumb to institute one currency over a bunch of economies whose needs may be in conflict with each other?
How's that? Don't US states have their own economies that often are in conflict with each other too?
Yes, to some extent. However, people can freely move from depressed states to booming states, and do so, which lessens the need for distinct monetary policies. I don't think moving from Greece to Germany is as easy as moving from Michigan to Texas, for many reasons.
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2010, 05:47:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:13:38 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2010, 10:59:48 PM
In hindsight, wasn't it kind of dumb to institute one currency over a bunch of economies whose needs may be in conflict with each other?
How's that? Don't US states have their own economies that often are in conflict with each other too?
Yes, to some extent. However, people can freely move from depressed states to booming states, and do so, which lessens the need for distinct monetary policies. I don't think moving from Greece to France is as easy as moving from Michigan to Texas, for many reasons.
There are no legal barriers to doing so. I guess language is the only real barrier that differs compared to the situation in the US but beyond that it is possible.
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:49:27 AM
There are no legal barriers to doing so. I guess language is the only real barrier that differs compared to the situation in the US but beyond that it is possible.
That's a pretty big barrier, not to mention social barriers. When you go from Greece to Germany, for all intents and purposes you are an immigrant. When you move from Michigan to Texas, you're still pretty much at home.
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2010, 06:07:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:49:27 AM
There are no legal barriers to doing so. I guess language is the only real barrier that differs compared to the situation in the US but beyond that it is possible.
That's a pretty big barrier, not to mention social barriers. When you go from Greece to Germany, for all intents and purposes you are an immigrant. When you move from Michigan to Texas, you're still pretty much at home.
Well, someone going from Kentucky to New york would be subject to great social barriers too I guess.
DGuller is right. Language is a very big barrier. People in small countries do speak very good English, but for the population of most big countries that is a huge obstacle.
Anyway, here in Spain more and more young, very qualified people are leaving North. Most of those I know of are engineers. My own brother is planning a move to Germany in the future. Quite frankly, if my circumstances were not against it, I'd leave too. The difference in salaries and especially work conditions is ridiculous.
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:08:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2010, 06:07:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:49:27 AM
There are no legal barriers to doing so. I guess language is the only real barrier that differs compared to the situation in the US but beyond that it is possible.
That's a pretty big barrier, not to mention social barriers. When you go from Greece to Germany, for all intents and purposes you are an immigrant. When you move from Michigan to Texas, you're still pretty much at home.
Well, someone going from Kentucky to New york would be subject to great social barriers too I guess.
Not really. People move across the country all the time for jobs. It's extremely common.
Its bizzare really, Greece that is, its been with western Europe for an age now, fully part of all our institutions. Yet its still just as crap as many ex-communist states and outsider, significantly bigger, with a dead horse chained to its leg, Turkey.
QuoteDGuller is right. Language is a very big barrier. People in small countries do speak very good English, but for the population of most big countries that is a huge obstacle.
Anyway, here in Spain more and more young, very qualified people are leaving North. Most of those I know of are engineers. My own brother is planning a move to Germany in the future. Quite frankly, if my circumstances were not against it, I'd leave too. The difference in salaries and especially work conditions is ridiculous.
People always really tend to underestimate the importance of language I think. Its such a simple thing they just don't expect it to be that big a problem.
Even in Sweden where 99% of people speak decent English or better its nigh on impossible to get a job without knowing Swedish- yet idiots keep flooding in expecting to find work easily.
Incidentally Romanians seem to be rather clever, they realise the language issue and that's why they migrate to the other latin countries. Yey.
QuoteWhat a ridiculously alarmist headline. :lol:
:yes:
The different EU states also have different legal systems, this can be quite a significant barrier.
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:08:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 13, 2010, 06:07:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:49:27 AM
There are no legal barriers to doing so. I guess language is the only real barrier that differs compared to the situation in the US but beyond that it is possible.
That's a pretty big barrier, not to mention social barriers. When you go from Greece to Germany, for all intents and purposes you are an immigrant. When you move from Michigan to Texas, you're still pretty much at home.
Well, someone going from Kentucky to New york would be subject to great social barriers too I guess.
People move around a lot here. Especially now with aeroplanes and Route 66 completed.
I'm willing to bet that a very significant number of Americans are living in a state that is not the one they were born in.
A bit of googling says it's about a third.
I hope the Euro does collapse. Why? Because somebody here had an avatar of the Euro fucking the dollar. I hope they all eat shit and die. Yes, I'm that petty.
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:13:38 AM
How's that? Don't US states have their own economies that often are in conflict with each other too?
No authority to coin their own money or provide services on the federal level, though, meaning if a state like, say, California, needed to be bailed out, that money would never come from another state; it'd come from the US Treasury. Also, constitutional mandates to balance budgets mean that on paper, no state should ever be in a situation where it needs to be directly bailed out, and if they are, they'll just rewrite the rules so that they're not in need of the money. So far, it's worked so much better than just printing additional money.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 08:02:05 AM
I'm willing to bet that a very significant number of Americans are living in a state that is not the one they were born in.
A bit of googling says it's about a third.
States aren't quite the same as countries though, I'd imagine much of this moving is someone from some shit hole middle of the country state living in its equally irrelevant, unknown neighbour.
A good comparison I'd like to see is using some groupings of states- maybe those typical ones you get where it categorises them into groups such as New England, the South, Pacifica, the empty zone, etc...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2010, 05:29:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:12:08 AM
What a ridiculously alarmist headline. :lol:
The more alarmist the headline, the more replies one gets. The internet is very simple that way.
The more alarmist and hysterical the headline is, the more scorn the original poster gets.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2010, 12:11:16 AM
Yeah, but Greece is small and irrelevant. The euro government in fiscal distress that actually matters is Spain.
Spain's fine. Their national debt's very low and for a number of years prior to the crisis they've had surpluses. They've got a big deficit because they're particularly hard-hit by the crisis in housing/construction but the fundamentals are strong. They've also used the crisis to push through some reform of pensions which is Spain's budgetary issue.
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2010, 09:06:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 08:02:05 AM
I'm willing to bet that a very significant number of Americans are living in a state that is not the one they were born in.
A bit of googling says it's about a third.
States aren't quite the same as countries though, I'd imagine much of this moving is someone from some shit hole middle of the country state living in its equally irrelevant, unknown neighbour.
A good comparison I'd like to see is using some groupings of states- maybe those typical ones you get where it categorises them into groups such as New England, the South, Pacifica, the empty zone, etc...
It's pretty amazing how ignorant Euros are of the geographic mobility of Americans!
All I can say, Tyr and Marti, is that you guys should really just stay silent on the topic until you know something about it.
Americans generally don't move unless they need to move to find work. If that is the case, moves generally are not "from some shit hole middle of the country state living in its equally irrelevant, unknown neighbour," because unlike (apparently) Britain, in the US economies are regional, and if there is a downturn in New Hampshire, it exists in Vermont as well. So, moves are generally some distance. And people who move to New York from Kentucky would not face significant social barriers, because a huge number of people already in New York are from places like Kentucky. We don't have anything like the (apparent) Polack clannishness.
Don't take what I say as a sufficient introduction to consider yourselves experts on the topic, guys. Learn a lot more before you post "information" on this topic (or topics about Americans generally, really). Thanks. :hug:
Quote from: The Larch on February 13, 2010, 09:26:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2010, 05:29:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:12:08 AM
What a ridiculously alarmist headline. :lol:
The more alarmist the headline, the more replies one gets. The internet is very simple that way.
The more alarmist and hysterical the headline is, the more scorn the original poster gets.
Should get, anyway.
But this is Timmay. Not sure scorn for him
could increase. Disdain, yes. Scorn, though?
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 10:05:58 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 13, 2010, 09:26:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2010, 05:29:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:12:08 AM
What a ridiculously alarmist headline. :lol:
The more alarmist the headline, the more replies one gets. The internet is very simple that way.
The more alarmist and hysterical the headline is, the more scorn the original poster gets.
Should get, anyway.
But this is Timmay. Not sure scorn for him could increase. Disdain, yes. Scorn, though?
I'm in "utter contempt" territory now.
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 10:04:54 AM
It's pretty amazing how ignorant Euros are of the geographic mobility of Americans!
All I can say, Tyr and Marti, is that you guys should really just stay silent on the topic until you know something about it.
Americans generally don't move unless they need to move to find work. If that is the case, moves generally are not "from some shit hole middle of the country state living in its equally irrelevant, unknown neighbour," because unlike (apparently) Britain, in the US economies are regional, and if there is a downturn in New Hampshire, it exists in Vermont as well. So, moves are generally some distance. And people who move to New York from Kentucky would not face significant social barriers, because a huge number of people already in New York are from places like Kentucky. We don't have anything like the (apparent) Polack clannishness.
Don't take what I say as a sufficient introduction to consider yourselves experts on the topic, guys. Learn a lot more before you post "information" on this topic (or topics about Americans generally, really). Thanks. :hug:
:rolleyes:
Please point out where I say I am an expert on America and am speaking the utmost truth. I quite clearly state I'm just having a little guess and would be interested in more details of where Amerians move to and from rather than just a blanket a third live outside of the state they were born.
That places like New York have people from everywhere is quite the given. But is there a big community of people from Louisianna in North Dakota and the like?
I really do think that if you're looking at people born out of state that ranking highly with many states would be their neighbours- its a lot easier to move two towns down the road and just barely over the state border than to start a new life at the other end of the country. I can't think how to phrase this though to find such information though...birth state per state or somesuch gets nothing- I can find details for biggest foreign populations in states but not Americans.
I know of a guy who moved from Massachusetts to Kentucky. He's been forced to eat out of gas stations, and wear 2000+ year clothing and footwear on occasions, but otherwise seems to be coping well.
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2010, 10:55:44 AM
:rolleyes:
Please point out where I say I am an expert on America and am speaking the utmost truth. I quite clearly state I'm just having a little guess and would be interested in more details of where Amerians move to and from rather than just a blanket a third live outside of the state they were born.
That places like New York have people from everywhere is quite the given. But is there a big community of people from Louisianna in North Dakota and the like?
I really do think that if you're looking at people born out of state that ranking highly with many states would be their neighbours- its a lot easier to move two towns down the road and just barely over the state border than to start a new life at the other end of the country. I can't think how to phrase this though to find such information though...birth state per state or somesuch gets nothing- I can find details for biggest foreign populations in states but not Americans.
I think you'll find more moving occurs between residences in the same town, mostly for affordability. Work moves are typically further, such as my parents moving to cut out my dad's hour-and-a-half commute from just north of Philly to down here to work as a glassblower.
Inter-community, same-state moves seem to usually be either family life-oriented (newly-ex just kicked me out and I need to go somewhere) or trying to eliminate/cut down a commute to work.
Big, cross-multiple-state moves are either moving up the job ladder or someone with enough money returning to a childhood/fantasy community.
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2010, 10:55:44 AM
:rolleyes:
Please point out where I say I am an expert on America and am speaking the utmost truth.
:rolleyes: Strawman much?
QuoteI quite clearly state I'm just having a little guess and would be interested in more details of where Amerians move to and from rather than just a blanket a third live outside of the state they were born.
You quite clearly
are not saying that at all in your earlier statement. You quite clearly
are aware that you have been caught out spouting absolute rubbish, and so want to recon your statement into a question.
QuoteThat places like New York have people from everywhere is quite the given. But is there a big community of people from Louisianna in North Dakota and the like?
Sure, there are people born in Louisiana who live in North Dakota. The people of the US don't form communities based around place of birth, though, so the Louisiana-born in North Dakota don't form a community, large or small.
QuoteI really do think that if you're looking at people born out of state that ranking highly with many states would be their neighbours- its a lot easier to move two towns down the road and just barely over the state border than to start a new life at the other end of the country.
So we are back to making statements again, after just claiming that you weren't? :lmfao:
I am sure that there are more Maryland-born people in Virginia than Missouri-born, even though the states are similar-sized, because a Marylander may well find a cheaper house on the other side of the Potomac, and still work were he/she works in Maryland. I am equally sure, though, that the vast majority of out-of-state-born in Virginia are not from states bordering Virginia (contrary to your assertions).
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 11:27:28 AM
:rolleyes: Strawman much?
1: No, not really. That was your token surface point 'how dare you speak with authority about America when you know nothing about it', to quote you:
Quotell I can say, Tyr and Marti, is that you guys should really just stay silent on the topic until you know something about it.
2: Strawman. :rolleyes: I guessed it from your first post. You're just doing your typical little trolly thing to get into pointless arguments.
Quote
You quite clearly are not saying that at all in your earlier statement. You quite clearly are aware that you have been caught out spouting absolute rubbish, and so want to recon your statement into a question.
You should know me by now. I don't give a crap about debate club :hug:
Quote
I am sure that there are more Maryland-born people in Virginia than Missouri-born, even though the states are similar-sized, because a Marylander may well find a cheaper house on the other side of the Potomac, and still work were he/she works in Maryland. I am equally sure, though, that the vast majority of out-of-state-born in Virginia are not from states bordering Virginia (contrary to your assertions).
Prove it then.
That's what I'm interested in knowing.
I said though I'd imagine this would be moreso with the less important states in the middle of the country than major states.
To be honest Tyr, there isn't a great difference between different states in the US. It's not like each state has it's own several hundred years of history, or linguistic dialects (not like Europe's at least). There are differences and people make a big deal about them, but when compared to Europe it's very small. I suspect there are bigger regional differences in just England then there are in the US. Only a few states feel really different. Hawaii, and Alaska. The rest of the country is remarkably homogenized. Grumbler's lived all over the US (and in England I think), he probably knows better then me.
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2010, 09:06:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 08:02:05 AM
I'm willing to bet that a very significant number of Americans are living in a state that is not the one they were born in.
A bit of googling says it's about a third.
States aren't quite the same as countries though, I'd imagine much of this moving is someone from some shit hole middle of the country state living in its equally irrelevant, unknown neighbour.
A good comparison I'd like to see is using some groupings of states- maybe those typical ones you get where it categorises them into groups such as New England, the South, Pacifica, the empty zone, etc...
The US population is moving south and west in droves.
This link was the first to come up and it has fun little maps and charts
http://pewsocialtrends.org/maps/migration/
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 12:36:39 PM
To be honest Tyr, there isn't a great difference between different states in the US. It's not like each state has it's own several hundred years of history, or linguistic dialects (not like Europe's at least). There are differences and people make a big deal about them, but when compared to Europe it's very small. I suspect there are bigger regional differences in just England then there are in the US. Only a few states feel really different. Hawaii, and Alaska. The rest of the country is remarkably homogenized. Grumbler's lived all over the US (and in England I think), he probably knows better then me.
That said. California. :wub:
At certain members (you know who the fuck you are):
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg22.imageshack.us%2Fimg22%2F2738%2F1180993442620rk0v.gif&hash=614dd0548c3d63c4486bd73f18687f42b2eb769d)
Ed, there's anime in there.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 03:54:47 PM
Ed, there's anime in there.
I don't care. The goddamn retardation must be responded to.
I'm prepared to escalate to Defcon 1
Good lord. The misconceptions some people have.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkromerica.com%2Farticles%2Fwww.magazine.org%2Feditorial%2F40-40-covers%2F4.jpg&hash=56f00b4e5d178eb92f80aed2829d74af61ac59ab)
Quote from: Zanza on February 12, 2010, 11:15:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2010, 10:59:48 PM
In hindsight, wasn't it kind of dumb to institute one currency over a bunch of economies whose needs may be in conflict with each other?
So far the advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages for everyone involved.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now, I freely admit I am heavily biased against the Euro, due to my (to create a quote for Europhiles) "puerile nationalism", but I would think that the citizens of Greece and Ireland would disagree with you. While "death spiral" is an exagerration, the Euro is one of the major factors in the strangulation of their economies at the moment.
I don't know enough about the situation in the other European countries listed in the article to comment on them.
And since it was known when the Euro was founded that Greece was a basket case, I have no sympathy for the Eurozone members. If I recall correctly, they fiddled the entry criteria to let Greece in from the start.
The one thing I do hope is that Britain doesn't have to spend billions propping up Greece's membership in the Euro, since we are not a member of the "Eurozone". Gordon Brown is being VERY cagey about exactly what was discussed, probably because he knows if we do end up paying that could very well be the final nail in his coffin.
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2010, 11:41:07 AM
Prove it then.
I don't need to. I am not interested in your trolly little debate club. :hug:
QuoteI said though I'd imagine this would be moreso with the less important states in the middle of the country than major states.
No, you never said that, but that's not really important because it probably isn't true. Of the major states, more probably come from other major states than neighboring, minor states. Thus, more Californians in New York than people from Connecticut. More people in Texas from Ohio than from Oklahoma. Etc.
Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2010, 03:43:31 PM
That said. California. :wub:
San Diego was the best place I ever lived, hands down.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 03:54:47 PM
Ed, there's anime in there.
Ed loves anime. He pretends not to in order to fit his artificial self-image.
Besides, he'd rather play forum policeman than talk about taking a shit, so there is his own meme destroyed. :(
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 05:02:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 03:54:47 PM
Ed, there's anime in there.
Ed loves anime. He pretends not to in order to fit his artificial self-image.
Besides, he'd rather play forum policeman than talk about taking a shit, so there is his own meme destroyed. :(
Forum judge, not a cop. I am judging everybody.
And I shit out a nightstick this morning.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 13, 2010, 05:05:08 PM
Forum judge, not a cop. I am judging everybody.
Everyone is doing
that!
We just are not all posting anime in order to try to reflect true feelings.
QuoteAnd I shit out a nightstick this morning.
That's what i wanted to hear.
I was wondering where my night stick had gone.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 13, 2010, 05:05:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 05:02:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 03:54:47 PM
Ed, there's anime in there.
Ed loves anime. He pretends not to in order to fit his artificial self-image.
Besides, he'd rather play forum policeman than talk about taking a shit, so there is his own meme destroyed. :(
Forum judge, not a cop. I am judging everybody.
And I shit out a nightstick this morning.
TMI!!!
Quote from: Agelastus on February 13, 2010, 04:42:28 PM
but I would think that the citizens of Greece and Ireland would disagree with you. While "death spiral" is an exagerration, the Euro is one of the major factors in the strangulation of their economies at the moment.
No one cares about the Irish and Greeks.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 13, 2010, 05:12:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 13, 2010, 05:05:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 05:02:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 03:54:47 PM
Ed, there's anime in there.
Ed loves anime. He pretends not to in order to fit his artificial self-image.
Besides, he'd rather play forum policeman than talk about taking a shit, so there is his own meme destroyed. :(
Forum judge, not a cop. I am judging everybody.
And I shit out a nightstick this morning.
TMI!!!
Fucker even had the handle like the PR-24.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 13, 2010, 05:22:05 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 13, 2010, 05:12:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 13, 2010, 05:05:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 05:02:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2010, 03:54:47 PM
Ed, there's anime in there.
Ed loves anime. He pretends not to in order to fit his artificial self-image.
Besides, he'd rather play forum policeman than talk about taking a shit, so there is his own meme destroyed. :(
Forum judge, not a cop. I am judging everybody.
And I shit out a nightstick this morning.
TMI!!!
Fucker even had the handle like the PR-24.
Hmmm..... :hmm:
That would, I am sure, hurt a bit.
OK. Not TMI then... :)
It plopped right out. :)
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 13, 2010, 05:21:04 AM
Wouldn't like to be the Greek PM right now; getting told-off like a naughty schoolboy by a bunch of Germans :lol:
The Germans should have never left. :ph34r:
We all say the same about Poland. :lol:
No one speaks of Poland in polite company.
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 13, 2010, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 13, 2010, 05:21:04 AM
Wouldn't like to be the Greek PM right now; getting told-off like a naughty schoolboy by a bunch of Germans :lol:
The Germans should have never left. :ph34r:
We all say the same about Poland. :lol:
Perhaps not with respect to the nazis, but I have always been saying it would have probably been a good thing if Poland continued to be ruled from Berlin after 1918. Berlin has a gay mayor, for one.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 13, 2010, 07:22:13 AM
The different EU states also have different legal systems, this can be quite a significant barrier.
Job qualifications are mutually recognized and there are free movement of workers regulations and various EU labour and consumer regulations that are pretty uniform (except perhaps for the UK which opted out). So I'd say the differences are not significantly more pronounced than between legal systems of different US states, when it comes to day-to-day living and working.
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 10:04:54 AM
And people who move to New York from Kentucky would not face significant social barriers, because a huge number of people already in New York are from places like Kentucky. We don't have anything like the (apparent) Polack clannishness.
Same can be said about Poles in London. I think you are underestimating worker mobility within the EU.
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:18:57 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on February 13, 2010, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 13, 2010, 05:21:04 AM
Wouldn't like to be the Greek PM right now; getting told-off like a naughty schoolboy by a bunch of Germans :lol:
The Germans should have never left. :ph34r:
We all say the same about Poland. :lol:
Perhaps not with respect to the nazis, but I have always been saying it would have probably been a good thing if Poland continued to be ruled from Berlin after 1918. Berlin has a gay mayor, for one.
Hans Frank would've kept you people in line.
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 10:04:54 AM
And people who move to New York from Kentucky would not face significant social barriers, because a huge number of people already in New York are from places like Kentucky. We don't have anything like the (apparent) Polack clannishness.
Same can be said about Poles in London. I think you are underestimating worker mobility within the EU.
:huh:
Quote from: Tamas on February 13, 2010, 07:03:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 10:04:54 AM
And people who move to New York from Kentucky would not face significant social barriers, because a huge number of people already in New York are from places like Kentucky. We don't have anything like the (apparent) Polack clannishness.
Same can be said about Poles in London. I think you are underestimating worker mobility within the EU.
:huh:
He's calling you out, get a job outside of Hungary you fucking slacker!
I like that Mart has given up his Polish pride BS and is content to be considered to be on the same level as a Kentuckian. It's still optimistic sure but an improvement.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 13, 2010, 04:42:28 PM
Now, I freely admit I am heavily biased against the Euro, due to my (to create a quote for Europhiles) "puerile nationalism", but I would think that the citizens of Greece and Ireland would disagree with you. While "death spiral" is an exagerration, the Euro is one of the major factors in the strangulation of their economies at the moment.
Without the Euro both would be bankrupt by now. Better be in a "death spiral" than dead I think.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 09:44:12 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 13, 2010, 12:11:16 AM
Yeah, but Greece is small and irrelevant. The euro government in fiscal distress that actually matters is Spain.
Spain's fine. Their national debt's very low and for a number of years prior to the crisis they've had surpluses. They've got a big deficit because they're particularly hard-hit by the crisis in housing/construction but the fundamentals are strong. They've also used the crisis to push through some reform of pensions which is Spain's budgetary issue.
Spain is not fine at all. There's a lot wrong, for example dismally low productivity (especially in the public sector), underfunded R&D, regular tax evasion, abusive work conditions, stupid two-tier job security (older workers are impossible to fire, young ones are pretty much free), woefully stupid fiscal incentives (which penalize hiring people and encourage speculation), strangled rent market, dysfunctional education system, generalized corruption ... but that's nothing new.
You're right in that we're not likely to collapse anytime soon, though. From my perspective it looks like the worst has passed. Still, I don't think we're likely to grow anytime soon. We've got to feed millions of construction workers without a single usable skill, the housing sector being dead and buried for the foreseeable future.
QuoteBill Bonner, reckoning from Baltimore, Maryland...
Well, the Greek story was big this week. 'The Big Fat Greek Meltdown,' as Justice Litle calls it. It pushed stocks and bonds down early in the week. By the end of the week it was pushing them up.
What happened in the meantime? Well, the euro-feds made it appear that they were going to do the same dumb things our own feds did. They said they were going to fix the situation. Just like the US fixed Fannie Mae and AIG!
There are 27 different nations in the European Union. And guess how many languages? Two-hundred and thirty. That surprised us too. Spain alone has 6 official languages.
But without doing any real research on the subject, we have discovered one word which is common to all these languages: bailout. Yes, dear reader, it was 'bailout'...spoken in hundreds of different languages and dialects...that lit a fire under the financial markets late this week. The embers were still hot yesterday; the Dow rose 106 points. Gold had it best day in weeks - up 18 bucks.
But doth a single bailout a real boom make?
Let us rephrase that. Will bailing out the spendthrift Greeks really make American businesses more profitable?
You know the answer. It won't. In fact, it will make them less profitable. What it does is allow the Greeks to continue spending in the style to which they've become accustomed. And if the Greeks are going to do that you can bet that the Irish aren't going to want cut back. Or the Portuguese. To say nothing of the Italians. And what about the English?
Bailing out the Greeks is a big mistake. But it's a mistake everyone seems to want to make. There's probably a Latin dictum for this sort of thing. But since we don't know what it is, we'll have to coin the phrase ourselves: Imbecility begets imbecility; especially when the bankers come out ahead.
What did you think? Who do you think the Greeks owe money to? That's right, the big banks are behind this. They've got hundreds of billions at stake in Greece. If the Greeks can't pay, the banks take a hit. Since no one wants the bankers to take a loss - except for us - once again, the feds are coming to the rescue.
Oh...why does this make US businesses LESS profitable? Well, it's a marginal thing. But what we're witnessing is a shift of economic power away from the private sector towards the public sector. Private businesses no longer borrow like they used to. Now, the feds do the borrowing and the spending. That leaves less capital...and less spending power...in private hands. Ergo, businesses will find it harder to make money.
They'll also find it harder to make money because interest rates will rise. Instead of letting the bad credit risks default, the feds weaken all credit. They're giving debt a bad name, in other words. The risk of default for the particular country goes down; the risk of default of the entire system increases. After all, the debt doesn't disappear. It has to be paid by someone. Sooner or later. Guess who that will be?
What arseclap.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 13, 2010, 04:42:28 PM
Now, I freely admit I am heavily biased against the Euro, due to my (to create a quote for Europhiles) "puerile nationalism", but I would think that the citizens of Greece and Ireland would disagree with you. While "death spiral" is an exagerration, the Euro is one of the major factors in the strangulation of their economies at the moment.
Without the Euro they'd be screwed. As it is they're humiliated Eurozone members (and rightly so - I don't think they should be able to vote in the EU for a decade or two) without it they'd be bankrupt and doing tricks for the IMF.
QuoteSpain is not fine at all. There's a lot wrong, for example dismally low productivity (especially in the public sector), underfunded R&D, regular tax evasion, abusive work conditions, stupid two-tier job security (older workers are impossible to fire, young ones are pretty much free), woefully stupid fiscal incentives (which penalize hiring people and encourage speculation), strangled rent market, dysfunctional education system, generalized corruption ... but that's nothing new.
:lol: Exactly, nothing new. The new stuff is American traders wondering if Spain's about to go bankrupt. Fiscally you're doing okay even in comparison with much of the rest of Europe.
Quote from: citizen k on February 13, 2010, 11:41:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 10:30:04 PM
What arseclap.
So when do the bailouts end?
Sorry, I didn't read the article. I did a scan and saw 'doth and 'dear reader' :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 10:04:54 AM
And people who move to New York from Kentucky would not face significant social barriers, because a huge number of people already in New York are from places like Kentucky. We don't have anything like the (apparent) Polack clannishness.
Same can be said about Poles in London. I think you are underestimating worker mobility within the EU.
What percentage of Poles live in Great Britain?
Marty just has no clue does he? The language barrier alone makes a cross-country move within the EU harder than any cross-state move in the US could ever be for an individual.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2010, 12:13:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:26:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 10:04:54 AM
And people who move to New York from Kentucky would not face significant social barriers, because a huge number of people already in New York are from places like Kentucky. We don't have anything like the (apparent) Polack clannishness.
Same can be said about Poles in London. I think you are underestimating worker mobility within the EU.
What percentage of Poles live in Great Britain?
According to official statistics, at the peek (before the crisis began), nearly 2 millions and a half of Poles emigrated to other EU member states (out of which 700k to the UK alone) looking for work. The total population of Poland is something like 35 million, so I'd say that out of it maybe 20 million are during their work years (i.e. are not children or retired). So that would mean over 10% of Poles emigrated to other EU countries looking for work and 2-3% of all working Poles were in the UK). It's not a small number.
Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2010, 04:45:50 AM
Marty just has no clue does he? The language barrier alone makes a cross-country move within the EU harder than any cross-state move in the US could ever be for an individual.
Most young Europeans speak English at least. This opens labour markets in the UK and Ireland, and many of the Western European big cities (I worked for 6 months in Brussels, and I don't speak a word in Flemish and do not know French very well, for example).
Maybe your fellow Hungarians don't emigrate for work much, because noone wants to hire gypos?
Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2010, 04:45:50 AM
Marty just has no clue does he? The language barrier alone makes a cross-country move within the EU harder than any cross-state move in the US could ever be for an individual.
't never stopped those spanish, italians, greeks, polish, romanians, hungarians, portuguese and what else there is before. If it did we'd not be seeing so many foreign people around here.
Still, it's easier of course when everyone already understands you but there's been significantly more intra-european mobility in search for jobs than one would expect at first glance.
In any case: it's a fact that the nationstate politicians refuse to come to the logical solution: a common currency needs a common economical policy. But as long as national dick-waving trumps common sense I guess we'll go from the Irelands to the Greeces to the Portugals, Spains, Italies to the Belgiums and what not.
Yeah, I find it funny that Americans dismiss European worker mobility as impossible due to language barriers, yet a substantial part of their of work force is composed of people whose first language is Spanish, rather than English. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 05:17:14 AM
Yeah, I find it funny that Americans dismiss European worker mobility as impossible due to language barriers, yet a substantial part of their of work force is composed of people whose first language is Spanish, rather than English. ;)
I don't think anyone dismissed it as "impossible", just said it wasn't as likely or common as people moving around the US internally.
Don't let my opinion stop anyone from throwing their ignorance around though. :)
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 05:17:14 AM
Yeah, I find it funny that Americans dismiss European worker mobility as impossible due to language barriers, yet a substantial part of their of work force is composed of people whose first language is Spanish, rather than English. ;)
Yeah, but the U.S. model works a bit different. Either you find a job and integrate or you go under. No cushy welfare crutch.
Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2010, 05:30:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 05:17:14 AM
Yeah, I find it funny that Americans dismiss European worker mobility as impossible due to language barriers, yet a substantial part of their of work force is composed of people whose first language is Spanish, rather than English. ;)
Yeah, but the U.S. model works a bit different. Either you find a job and integrate or you go under. No cushy welfare crutch.
I think you only qualify for welfare in a given country if you have worked there before - i.e. a Polish worker can't just emigrate to Germany, for example, and immediately claim social welfare. In fact, the UK statistics show that even the migrant workers who subsequently lose their job are less likely to claim benefits than locals (instead, they just go back to their home countries).
So your post seems like the kind of populist scaremongering we have been getting lately. :P
QuoteTo be honest Tyr, there isn't a great difference between different states in the US. It's not like each state has it's own several hundred years of history, or linguistic dialects (not like Europe's at least). There are differences and people make a big deal about them, but when compared to Europe it's very small. I suspect there are bigger regional differences in just England then there are in the US. Only a few states feel really different. Hawaii, and Alaska. The rest of the country is remarkably homogenized. Grumbler's lived all over the US (and in England I think), he probably knows better then me.
I've never said anything about there being big differences between the states, I'm just wondering about how mobile people are and where they generally move to.
Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2010, 04:57:42 PM
[No, you never said that
Yes I did (can't be arsed to quote but it was something about insignificant shitty little central state to its equally naff neighbour). You need to check your glasses with this thread.
Quote
more probably come from other major states than neighboring, minor states. Thus, more Californians in New York than people from Connecticut. More people in Texas from Ohio than from Oklahoma. Etc.
But minor state to minor state?
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 05:07:44 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2010, 04:45:50 AM
Marty just has no clue does he? The language barrier alone makes a cross-country move within the EU harder than any cross-state move in the US could ever be for an individual.
Most young Europeans speak English at least. This opens labour markets in the UK and Ireland, and many of the Western European big cities (I worked for 6 months in Brussels, and I don't speak a word in Flemish and do not know French very well, for example).
Maybe your fellow Hungarians don't emigrate for work much, because noone wants to hire gypos?
Brussels is a bad example because it is the political capital of the EU. As a matter of fact, your job is a bad example because IIRC its some cross-EU laws thingie, of course you are doing the same stuff.
And I am not dismissing intra-EU immigration altogether, of course it happens, and it is good that it happens.
All I am saying, and this really should be very basic stuff to grasp, is that it IS harder to move around the EU job-hunting than to do the same in the US, and the chief reason for this is lanugage.
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 05:17:14 AM
Yeah, I find it funny that Americans dismiss European worker mobility as impossible due to language barriers, yet a substantial part of their of work force is composed of people whose first language is Spanish, rather than English. ;)
Serious question though. Poles that travel the EU to get work. Do they stay there and get citizenship in become British or whatever or do they go back or stay Polish citizens?
Quote from: sbr on February 14, 2010, 05:24:25 AM
I don't think anyone dismissed it as "impossible", just said it wasn't as likely or common as people moving around the US internally.
Don't let my opinion stop anyone from throwing their ignorance around though. :)
I'd hold off on making that claim until the 2008-9 numbers for migration are in. The 2005-2007 migration to the south was a combination of a booming housing market and a lower cost of living in that region. I think you'll find the southern migration came damn near a screeching halt when the housing bubble collapsed.
The issue is actually very serious.
The fact is, the southern european nations (and Ireland to an extent) have surrendered their currencies to the EU, wich means that they cannot inflate their debt away.
Since nobody is willing to accept meaningful cuts (the 'crisis budget' Greece enacted will, at best, lower their deficit to 9,1% of GDP, which is still unsustaineable), and a rise in taxes (or interest rates) will tank our economies, the only way out would be a bailout from the ECB.
For now, the politicians, who cannot accept the massive loss of popularity/open revolt which will result from enacting the massive spending cuts needed, will merely 'kick the can' - i.e. claim everything will be solved and do nothing but take symbolic measures.
(Since everybody knows it's the Germans who will pay for it all, there isn't really an interest in enacting major cuts)
Eventually, the ECB will have to bail us all out. And the Italians too, since they'll be the next fiscal crisis.
And it's best if the Brits don't get too cocky. Britain has an ever bigger deficit, and the market just won't let London inflate the debt away, so you will soon join us all in the bin.
The question is, when will Germany get into a massive fiscal crisis for trying to bail out most of Europe? And who will help it?
Certainly not the US, whose deficit is breaking records with each passing year.
Quote from: Martinus
I think you only qualify for welfare in a given country if you have worked there before
Less-known fact: if you're from a EU member state and are recieving unemployment subsidy, you can go to another EU country and still recieve it for up to 6 months (request it at the appropriate buro in the country in question; it will bill your country of origin for it later).
This is done to increase intra-EU mobility.
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:26:40 PM
Same can be said about Poles in London. I think you are underestimating worker mobility within the EU.
I am not saying anything about worker mobility in Europe, so it is impossible for me to underestimate it. :cool:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2010, 08:29:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 05:17:14 AM
Yeah, I find it funny that Americans dismiss European worker mobility as impossible due to language barriers, yet a substantial part of their of work force is composed of people whose first language is Spanish, rather than English. ;)
Serious question though. Poles that travel the EU to get work. Do they stay there and get citizenship in become British or whatever or do they go back or stay Polish citizens?
IIRC most got back or plans to go back, and there's hardly any point in getting British citizenship for EU nationals.
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 05:17:14 AM
Yeah, I find it funny that Americans dismiss European worker mobility as impossible due to language barriers, yet a substantial part of their of work force is composed of people whose first language is Spanish, rather than English. ;)
I find it funny that a Euro would resort to strawman arguments when it became clear his arguments about US geographic mobility were complete horseshit.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 14, 2010, 09:12:07 AM
Since nobody is willing to accept meaningful cuts (the 'crisis budget' Greece enacted will, at best, lower their deficit to 9,1% of GDP, which is still unsustaineable), and a rise in taxes (or interest rates) will tank our economies, the only way out would be a bailout from the ECB.
This must be humiliating for the proud Union that marched into Germany just 60 years or so ago.
The language issue IS a big barrier in Europe, and less noticed in Britain because many people in Western Europe speak English.
And I don't know about Martinus, but everytime I go to the EC, apart from the top ranks - who love to speak in English - all the lower tiers prefer other languages, especially French.
And yes, Rumanians fare better here. Their language does help, at least in Portugal.
(except for rumanian gypsies, who do not work and send their women out to beg)
Quote from: grumbler
This must be humiliating for the proud Union that marched into Germany just 60 years or so ago.
The Union had other problems and its fair share of humiliation. Don't worry, the US will get its share of it soon, since your coming fiscal crisis will put everybody elses' to shame.
But the whole issue is also quite bad for Russia, because it tied too much of its economy to the West. As a result, the Russian economy has tanked hard because of the crisis.
What irks me is that in Moscow there is really confidence that things in the West will improve and with it the national economy. It stands in stark contratst to the Chinese view, who note in private that the West is stuck in a dead end of which there is no exit.
The last time America a had a very serious economic meltdown Europe's economy was crushed as well. Then it went Nazi. Then it was crushed again militarily by America. If that's the route you are hoping for, good luck.
We can kill a million germans again after the war? COOL.
Where is Isebrand? :menace:
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 14, 2010, 10:35:03 AM
We can kill a million germans again after the war? COOL.
:(
Have I accidentally stepped in a time machine to last year?
Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2010, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 14, 2010, 10:35:03 AM
We can kill a million germans again after the war? COOL.
:(
We can spare you from the disintegration booths. We'll fudge the computer.
Quote from: Zanza on February 13, 2010, 07:52:44 PM
Without the Euro both would be bankrupt by now. Better be in a "death spiral" than dead I think.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 10:34:07 PM
Without the Euro they'd be screwed. As it is they're humiliated Eurozone members (and rightly so - I don't think they should be able to vote in the EU for a decade or two) without it they'd be bankrupt and doing tricks for the IMF.
Sometimes I wonder if we even live in the same world. In Ireland's case especially the Euro has been the rock that has pulled it down. Without the Euro, with the freedom to set there own interest rates, set their own acceptable levels of inflation, and have their currency floating, they'd be in a LOT better position now. As it is (having worked for a company that dealt extensively with Ireland) their economy has been staggering for the best part of four years, at the least.
One of the best subjective measures seems to me to be the difficulty of/length of time for getting payment for services rendered. Ireland "went bad" a good 18 months or more before the UK in that respect.
Greece, of course, would almost certainly have spent itself into oblivion in or out of the Euro, since this is not the first time they've sailed this close to the edge. Greece seems to be incapable of fiscal rationality.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 11:35:15 AM
Sometimes I wonder if we even live in the same world. In Ireland's case especially the Euro has been the rock that has pulled it down. Without the Euro, with the freedom to set there own interest rates, set their own acceptable levels of inflation, and have their currency floating, they'd be in a LOT better position now. As it is (having worked for a company that dealt extensively with Ireland) their economy has been staggering for the best part of four years, at the least.
Statistically the Irish economy hasn't grown at less than 4% between 2003-08 and the pre-2003 period was even stronger. A lot of her growth will be slow in the future because she's more than caught up with the rest of Europe so it'll never again reach Celtic Tiger levels consistently. Though of course she wouldn't have had very much of that growth without the EU. And without the Euro Ireland would be lucky to get off as well as Iceland.
In terms of fiscal policy the Irish in my opinion simply had far too narrow a tax base for a long-term sustainable budgetary situation.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2010, 08:29:36 AM
Serious question though. Poles that travel the EU to get work. Do they stay there and get citizenship in become British or whatever or do they go back or stay Polish citizens?
I think if they wanted they could eventually apply for British citizenship. But there's no point. They pay the same taxes and social security, they have the same legal rights in terms of work and education and, as legal migrants, they get to vote in our local and European elections (not sure about national elections). I don't know why they'd want to become a British citizen.
Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2010, 10:40:27 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 14, 2010, 10:35:03 AM
We can kill a million germans again after the war? COOL.
:(
If you emigrate you can work in army intelligence after the war, become secretary of state and get all the women you want. Just like Kissinger.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 11:55:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2010, 08:29:36 AM
Serious question though. Poles that travel the EU to get work. Do they stay there and get citizenship in become British or whatever or do they go back or stay Polish citizens?
I think if they wanted they could eventually apply for British citizenship. But there's no point. They pay the same taxes and social security, they have the same legal rights in terms of work and education and, as legal migrants, they get to vote in our local and European elections (not sure about national elections). I don't know why they'd want to become a British citizen.
Well to be fair I don't know why anyone would want to be a British citizen. I was just curious. This wasn't an attempt to score points in the endless Europe v America debate.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2010, 12:01:42 PM
Well to be fair I don't know why anyone would want to be a British citizen. I was just curious. This wasn't an attempt to score points in the endless Europe v America debate.
I didn't think I was being hostile or that you were trying to score points :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 11:53:19 AM
Statistically the Irish economy hasn't grown at less than 4% between 2003-08 and the pre-2003 period was even stronger. A lot of her growth will be slow in the future because she's more than caught up with the rest of Europe so it'll never again reach Celtic Tiger levels consistently. Though of course she wouldn't have had very much of that growth without the EU. And without the Euro Ireland would be lucky to get off as well as Iceland.
In terms of fiscal policy the Irish in my opinion simply had far too narrow a tax base for a long-term sustainable budgetary situation.
I know this sounds stupid in a way, but headline statistics don't tell the whole story, or even a particularly truthful one in some respects. I worked for a company that supplied industrial and commercial lighting. In other words, to the construcion industry (and in particular the refurbishment industry) which tends to get the first hit from economic problems as the companies that pay for the work delay or cancel projects. And business levels were way down and payment difficulties were way up from at least 2005. So in a period when you have "4%" growth officially you already have one of the key signs of a looming recession happening.
And this is not just the view from this side of the Irish Sea. This is what was getting back to us from customers who'd been in the business for twenty or thirty years and had never seen it so bad. Not even in a period from before Ireland had become such a "Tiger"economy.
Consider the Wholesaler market, for example. As far as I am aware none of the major UK ones have gone bust, although there have been some takeovers. Two of the major Irish ones went, without any sort of rescue, and the first was about three or four years ago. Not long after their largest road shipping company went bust, which was well before the supposed "4%" growth rates had stopped.
I keep hearing this, "Ireland would not have had so much growth without the EU" phrase, normally coupled with the information that this is due to the fact that Ireland receives so much more funding from the EU compared to their contribution.
Of course, without all that extra funding to create an unstable and unsupported boom, she would not have crashed anywhere near as hard, if at all. And without the Euro, she would have had a lot more economic options to fight her economic malaise, which is something I don't think even the pro-Euro crowd could deny.
So you can't really argue without the EU Ireland would be dead or worse off than Iceland as the conditions that led to Ireland's crisis are rooted too deeply in her membership of the EU.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:09:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2010, 12:01:42 PM
Well to be fair I don't know why anyone would want to be a British citizen. I was just curious. This wasn't an attempt to score points in the endless Europe v America debate.
I didn't think I was being hostile or that you were trying to score points :mellow:
Although only as anecdotal evidence, I did work with a Turk taking the citizenship classes, and she did say that there were a lot of Poles in her class.
I think that a good proportion of the Poles planning to stay will end up taking up dual citizenship, and, again anecdotally speaking, at least half the workforce where I worked was Polish, and at least half of them were setting up in a way which suggested they weren't going home anytime soon, regardless of the economy (buying property, having children, summoning families, or getting new jobs in the UK after being laid off saying they were going back to Poland.)
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 12:17:49 PM
I know this sounds stupid in a way, but headline statistics don't tell the whole story, or even a particularly truthful one in some respects. I worked for a company that supplied industrial and commercial lighting. In other words, to the construcion industry (and in particular the refurbishment industry) which tends to get the first hit from economic problems as the companies that pay for the work delay or cancel projects. And business levels were way down and payment difficulties were way up from at least 2005. So in a period when you have "4%" growth officially you already have one of the key signs of a looming recession happening.
And this is not just the view from this side of the Irish Sea. This is what was getting back to us from customers who'd been in the business for twenty or thirty years and had never seen it so bad. Not even in a period from before Ireland had become such a "Tiger"economy.
Consider the Wholesaler market, for example. As far as I am aware none of the major UK ones have gone bust, although there have been some takeovers. Two of the major Irish ones went, without any sort of rescue, and the first was about three or four years ago. Not long after their largest road shipping company went bust, which was well before the supposed "4%" growth rates had stopped.
Look people always fail. There are always sections of the economy that are doing shit. Now it may be true that this was happening in construction and wholesaling in Ireland but that's a smaller part of the economy than the financial services sector, retail, service sector generally and IT all of which employ far more people and boomed. So I'm not convinced that what you were seeing was the canary keeling over or whether it was particular industries that weren't doing well.
On retail in particular (as this could be linked to the wholesaling) the Irish retail and hospitality sector has really modernised its back-office stuff in the last ten years and it's a lot larger and more efficient and more corporate which would, I imagine, have an effect further along the supply chain. And I do wonder if some of those 20-30 year old clients were dying off because they weren't changing or efficient enough, that is did they not feel the Tiger or were they killed off by the Tiger.
Now we can argue over whether a dominance on the service sector is a good thing or not - and I don't think it is. But if we're going to do that, let's focus on Maggie not Ireland :P
QuoteI keep hearing this, "Ireland would not have had so much growth without the EU" phrase, normally coupled with the information that this is due to the fact that Ireland receives so much more funding from the EU compared to their contribution.
Of course, without all that extra funding to create an unstable and unsupported boom, she would not have crashed anywhere near as hard, if at all. And without the Euro, she would have had a lot more economic options to fight her economic malaise, which is something I don't think even the pro-Euro crowd could deny.
This is ridiculous. The EU helps a country build its economy from being the poorest of the richest to one of the richest parts of the world and it's a bad thing because when they fall it's extra hard and the EU's fault. The EU invested a lot in Irish infrastructure - more's needed - but more importantly it was the existence of a common market that helped the Irish. They cut taxes and had a relatively well educated English speaking populace with access to the world's biggest market. Inevitably international companies would suddenly find Ireland a very attractive location for their European bases.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2010, 12:22:55 PM
Although only as anecdotal evidence, I did work with a Turk taking the citizenship classes, and she did say that there were a lot of Poles in her class.
I think that a good proportion of the Poles planning to stay will end up taking up dual citizenship, and, again anecdotally speaking, at least half the workforce where I worked was Polish, and at least half of them were setting up in a way which suggested they weren't going home anytime soon, regardless of the economy (buying property, having children, summoning families, or getting new jobs in the UK after being laid off saying they were going back to Poland.)
I think it's still really unclear. I mean about half the Poles have gone home I think but they were overwhelmingly very young. I still don't know if they'll end up settling down, meeting an English girl, having kids and so on or if they're still planning to go back to Poland. I don't know if they're basically like European South Africans/Australians or are looking to settle.
Either way they're welcome :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 10:34:07 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 13, 2010, 04:42:28 PM
Now, I freely admit I am heavily biased against the Euro, due to my (to create a quote for Europhiles) "puerile nationalism", but I would think that the citizens of Greece and Ireland would disagree with you. While "death spiral" is an exagerration, the Euro is one of the major factors in the strangulation of their economies at the moment.
Without the Euro they'd be screwed. As it is they're humiliated Eurozone members (and rightly so - I don't think they should be able to vote in the EU for a decade or two) without it they'd be bankrupt and doing tricks for the IMF.
QuoteSpain is not fine at all. There's a lot wrong, for example dismally low productivity (especially in the public sector), underfunded R&D, regular tax evasion, abusive work conditions, stupid two-tier job security (older workers are impossible to fire, young ones are pretty much free), woefully stupid fiscal incentives (which penalize hiring people and encourage speculation), strangled rent market, dysfunctional education system, generalized corruption ... but that's nothing new.
:lol: Exactly, nothing new. The new stuff is American traders wondering if Spain's about to go bankrupt. Fiscally you're doing okay even in comparison with much of the rest of Europe.
Sheilbh, you are missing the point--it isn't about default, it is about an economy with a massive budget deficit that is attempting to close it while it has close to 20% unemployment. Contractionary fiscal policy in a deep recession is a textbook method to create an economic disaster.
I am a huge fan of the euro and european integration--a common currency makes europe a much better place to do business. But this is the classic danger of having a common currency in europe--wheras before the pesata would devalue in which would help spanish exporters, encourage investment in spain, and protect domestic producers, Spain is now stuck with a relatively strong currency.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2010, 12:41:34 PM
Sheilbh, you are missing the point--it isn't about default, it is about an economy with a massive budget deficit that is attempting to close it while it has close to 20% unemployment. Contractionary fiscal policy in a deep recession is a textbook method to create an economic disaster.
But as I say fiscally Spain's not doing badly. Their national debt is about a the level and I think a little less than the UK or the US and about a third of, say, Italy or Greece. Similarly they had a strong surplus a short while ago. Now they have problems with the construction sector which has, of course, been particularly badly hit but their banking sector's solid and growing. In terms of the cuts their budget deficit is smaller than the UK's and they have said they'll cut it but the ECB is giving countries lots of lee-way right now in terms of deficit spending. The Spanish don't need an emergency as much as Ireland did and my understanding is the goal is to cut the deficit to within 3% of GDP by 2013.
I agree that it's unfortunate that Spain can't devalue her currency - but I don't think she's necessarily standing on a precipice. The sudden worry about Euro-state sovereign debt genuinely seems very overblown to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:26:59 PM
Look people always fail. There are always sections of the economy that are doing shit. Now it may be true that this was happening in construction and wholesaling in Ireland but that's a smaller part of the economy than the financial services sector, retail, service sector generally and IT all of which employ far more people and boomed. So I'm not convinced that what you were seeing was the canary keeling over or whether it was particular industries that weren't doing well.
The point is that it is an indicator because it depends on the other, larger sectors of the economy for its business. When things get tight, store and bank refurbishments are the first things cut back, even before plans to build new branches. So I think it is a very good indicator, and although the evidence is anecdotal, it comes from people with a ground floor view of the economy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:26:59 PM
On retail in particular (as this could be linked to the wholesaling) the Irish retail and hospitality sector has really modernised its back-office stuff in the last ten years and it's a lot larger and more efficient and more corporate which would, I imagine, have an effect further along the supply chain. And I do wonder if some of those 20-30 year old clients were dying off because they weren't changing or efficient enough, that is did they not feel the Tiger or were they killed off by the Tiger.
Wrong sort of wholesalers (I'm talking about the sort like our Newey & Eyre or Edmundsons.) Several of our wholesalers have been taken over, as I said, without disappearing. The Irish ones went bust with no-one to pick up the pieces. Which indicated that all their rivals were in just as deep shit as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:26:59 PM
Now we can argue over whether a dominance on the service sector is a good thing or not - and I don't think it is. But if we're going to do that, let's focus on Maggie not Ireland :P
I consider relying on a service industry economy to the extent we do as being foolish in the extreme. However, I also don't think that Thatcher's medicine was unneeded for our economy (privatisation, breaking much of the Unions power etc.) One can make an argument that she went too far, not that she was not needed in my own opinion.
The indifference of successive governments to manufacturing AFTER Thatcher's neccessary shock is much more disturbing. The decline of car manufacturing (and thus strategically vital mass production techniques) is a case in point.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:26:59 PM
This is ridiculous. The EU helps a country build its economy from being the poorest of the richest to one of the richest parts of the world and it's a bad thing because when they fall it's extra hard and the EU's fault. The EU invested a lot in Irish infrastructure - more's needed - but more importantly it was the existence of a common market that helped the Irish. They cut taxes and had a relatively well educated English speaking populace with access to the world's biggest market. Inevitably international companies would suddenly find Ireland a very attractive location for their European bases.
It's not a bad thing. I was merely pointing out that you cannot say with such blanket certainty that without the EU Ireland would have been worse off than Iceland during the current financial crisis as the EU itself was so integral to the growth and circumstances that have led to the bust. You were basing your perspective on Ireland's current position and writing off Ireland without the Euro/EU without factoring that into your argument
Your own argument does dovetail quite nicely with my own position on Europe actually; that all we need is a free trade/common standards area without any of the idiot political claptrap.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:28:39 PM
I think it's still really unclear. I mean about half the Poles have gone home I think but they were overwhelmingly very young. I still don't know if they'll end up settling down, meeting an English girl, having kids and so on or if they're still planning to go back to Poland. I don't know if they're basically like European South Africans/Australians or are looking to settle.
Either way they're welcome :)
I agree. I had no time at work for any complaints from the "English" half of the workforce about Poles coming in and taking our jobs.
Firstly, because I consider immigration a good thing.
Secondly, because as most of them claimed to have voted for Labour, they were acting hypocritically in complaining about it. If they felt that strongly about it as a political issue, they should have voted for an anti-immigration party (by which I do not mean the Tories, as I am certain that had they been in power they would also have placed no delays or limits on this migration, despite their rhetoric.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 14, 2010, 12:52:33 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2010, 12:41:34 PM
Sheilbh, you are missing the point--it isn't about default, it is about an economy with a massive budget deficit that is attempting to close it while it has close to 20% unemployment. Contractionary fiscal policy in a deep recession is a textbook method to create an economic disaster.
But as I say fiscally Spain's not doing badly. Their national debt is about a the level and I think a little less than the UK or the US and about a third of, say, Italy or Greece. Similarly they had a strong surplus a short while ago. Now they have problems with the construction sector which has, of course, been particularly badly hit but their banking sector's solid and growing. In terms of the cuts their budget deficit is smaller than the UK's and they have said they'll cut it but the ECB is giving countries lots of lee-way right now in terms of deficit spending. The Spanish don't need an emergency as much as Ireland did and my understanding is the goal is to cut the deficit to within 3% of GDP by 2013.
I agree that it's unfortunate that Spain can't devalue her currency - but I don't think she's necessarily standing on a precipice. The sudden worry about Euro-state sovereign debt genuinely seems very overblown to me.
Sheilbh, you are off base. You are in a fiscal disaster if you have very high unemployment and are in a spot that you have to cut spending. How much debt you have is less relevant. Look around the globe--it is a minority of countries that can finance debt that is a significant percent of GDP.
If Spain implements plans to reduce deficit spending from 13% of GDP to 3% in a few years, you realize that is going to impose a massive GDP reduction on a country that is already experiencing very tough times? Maybe that doesn't cause tax revenues to decrease significantly (reopening the budget deficit), but it will still have very negative consequences for Spain, and the rest of Europe.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2010, 12:41:34 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2010, 10:34:07 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 13, 2010, 04:42:28 PM
Now, I freely admit I am heavily biased against the Euro, due to my (to create a quote for Europhiles) "puerile nationalism", but I would think that the citizens of Greece and Ireland would disagree with you. While "death spiral" is an exagerration, the Euro is one of the major factors in the strangulation of their economies at the moment.
Without the Euro they'd be screwed. As it is they're humiliated Eurozone members (and rightly so - I don't think they should be able to vote in the EU for a decade or two) without it they'd be bankrupt and doing tricks for the IMF.
QuoteSpain is not fine at all. There's a lot wrong, for example dismally low productivity (especially in the public sector), underfunded R&D, regular tax evasion, abusive work conditions, stupid two-tier job security (older workers are impossible to fire, young ones are pretty much free), woefully stupid fiscal incentives (which penalize hiring people and encourage speculation), strangled rent market, dysfunctional education system, generalized corruption ... but that's nothing new.
:lol: Exactly, nothing new. The new stuff is American traders wondering if Spain's about to go bankrupt. Fiscally you're doing okay even in comparison with much of the rest of Europe.
Sheilbh, you are missing the point--it isn't about default, it is about an economy with a massive budget deficit that is attempting to close it while it has close to 20% unemployment. Contractionary fiscal policy in a deep recession is a textbook method to create an economic disaster.
I am a huge fan of the euro and european integration--a common currency makes europe a much better place to do business. But this is the classic danger of having a common currency in europe--wheras before the pesata would devalue in which would help spanish exporters, encourage investment in spain, and protect domestic producers, Spain is now stuck with a relatively strong currency.
Quite frankly, I prefer things this way. Changes are sorely needed, crisis or not, and with a bit of luck we might get to see some of those now. I'd rather face the problems and restructure than patch things up and cope.
Of course, I might think otherwise if I were struggling. The truth is I've got a relatively secure job that pays well above the median salary and if things get really bad and I lose it I'd have enough savings and skills to be optimistic.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2010, 01:17:38 PM
Sheilbh, you are off base. You are in a fiscal disaster if you have very high unemployment and are in a spot that you have to cut spending. How much debt you have is less relevant. Look around the globe--it is a minority of countries that can finance debt that is a significant percent of GDP.
If Spain implements plans to reduce deficit spending from 13% of GDP to 3% in a few years, you realize that is going to impose a massive GDP reduction on a country that is already experiencing very tough times? Maybe that doesn't cause tax revenues to decrease significantly (reopening the budget deficit), but it will still have very negative consequences for Spain, and the rest of Europe.
I wouldn't worry that much. Truth is there's a lot of room for improvement in the Spanish economy. Just tapping into all the revenue lost to the black market would make more than enough to get into a healthy surplus.
Also, many if not most of those unemployed now are foreigners. Once things get started elsewhere quite a few will probably leave.
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2010, 09:19:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:26:40 PM
Same can be said about Poles in London. I think you are underestimating worker mobility within the EU.
I am not saying anything about worker mobility in Europe, so it is impossible for me to underestimate it. :cool:
I thought that's what we have been discussing. :huh:
Your claim that there is a bigger difference, culturally speaking, between the UK and Greece than between New York and Kentucky, is quite true, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand: that other than the language barrier, the worker mobility in Europe is not materially lower than in the US.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2010, 08:29:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 05:17:14 AM
Yeah, I find it funny that Americans dismiss European worker mobility as impossible due to language barriers, yet a substantial part of their of work force is composed of people whose first language is Spanish, rather than English. ;)
Serious question though. Poles that travel the EU to get work. Do they stay there and get citizenship in become British or whatever or do they go back or stay Polish citizens?
Usually the latter. That does not change the fact that European economies can be responsive to each other through worker movements, which I believe is the only thing myself and Tyr are claiming here. :)
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2010, 09:19:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2010, 06:26:40 PM
Same can be said about Poles in London. I think you are underestimating worker mobility within the EU.
I am not saying anything about worker mobility in Europe, so it is impossible for me to underestimate it. :cool:
I thought that's what we have been discussing. :huh:
Your claim that there is a bigger difference, culturally speaking, between the UK and Greece than between New York and Kentucky, is quite true, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand: that other than the language barrier, the worker mobility in Europe is not materially lower than in the US.
What do you mean by materially lower?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2010, 01:59:33 PM
What do you mean by materially lower?
translation "however I define it to make it seem like I am right."
There is a simple way to solve the labor mobility debate. Just compare the % of US residents not born in the state which they reside vs. the % of immigrants in the EU member states.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2010, 01:17:38 PM
Sheilbh, you are off base. You are in a fiscal disaster if you have very high unemployment and are in a spot that you have to cut spending. How much debt you have is less relevant. Look around the globe--it is a minority of countries that can finance debt that is a significant percent of GDP.
How much debt you have is very relevant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2010, 03:12:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2010, 01:17:38 PM
Sheilbh, you are off base. You are in a fiscal disaster if you have very high unemployment and are in a spot that you have to cut spending. How much debt you have is less relevant. Look around the globe--it is a minority of countries that can finance debt that is a significant percent of GDP.
How much debt you have is very relevant.
What matters is how willing lenders are to service your debt, and at what cost. Japan has about three times our debt as a percent of GDP, but has no problems financing it. Russia has far less debt than us, but there were concerns of default a year ago.
Looking back to the credit crunch last year, there were companies that either went bankrupt or effectively did so even though their assets exceeded their liabilities and they had only posted earnings in the previous several years.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2010, 03:31:00 PM
What matters is how willing lenders are to service your debt, and at what cost. Japan has about three times our debt as a percent of GDP, but has no problems financing it. Russia has far less debt than us, but there were concerns of default a year ago.
Sovereign debt is just like a mortgage. Credit worthiness is based on repayment history and debt/income.
Japan might be a special case because of their huge domestic savings and apparent indifference to getting zero return.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2010, 04:38:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2010, 03:31:00 PM
What matters is how willing lenders are to service your debt, and at what cost. Japan has about three times our debt as a percent of GDP, but has no problems financing it. Russia has far less debt than us, but there were concerns of default a year ago.
Sovereign debt is just like a mortgage. Credit worthiness is based on repayment history and debt/income.
It is more complicated than that, but in any event Spain just went on credit watch.
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2010, 01:47:07 PM
I thought that's what we have been discussing. :huh:
Your claim that there is a bigger difference, culturally speaking, between the UK and Greece than between New York and Kentucky, is quite true, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand: that other than the language barrier, the worker mobility in Europe is not materially lower than in the US.
Most of this is quite true, which is why I thought it absurd that you brought Kentucky workers in New York into the discussion. Now that you have conceded my point, we are not discussing anything any more.
As far as non-language barriers to inter-European-country worker mobility, I wouldn't know about that in general. I have anecdotes of British friends of mine who now live in Paris and found the culture shock pretty profound, but they are individuals and I am not in the habit of Marti-ing from a single fact into a sweeping generalization.
However, I am in the habit of sweeping generalizations and I'd prefer you don't describe it as Martinizing. Thank You.
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2010, 07:06:52 PM
As far as non-language barriers to inter-European-country worker mobility, I wouldn't know about that in general. I have anecdotes of British friends of mine who now live in Paris and found the culture shock pretty profound, but they are individuals and I am not in the habit of Marti-ing from a single fact into a sweeping generalization.
In my very limited experience Italians, Portuguese or southern French are fairly similar to us. Open, social and all that. Swedes and the like, OTOH, won't even acknowledge your existence unless they are terribly drunk. Maybe a lack of sunshine thing.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 14, 2010, 07:50:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2010, 07:06:52 PM
As far as non-language barriers to inter-European-country worker mobility, I wouldn't know about that in general. I have anecdotes of British friends of mine who now live in Paris and found the culture shock pretty profound, but they are individuals and I am not in the habit of Marti-ing from a single fact into a sweeping generalization.
In my very limited experience Italians, Portuguese or southern French are fairly similar to us. Open, social and all that. Swedes and the like, OTOH, won't even acknowledge your existence unless they are terribly drunk. Maybe a lack of sunshine thing.
Or having standards thing.
A good article that breaks it down to it's most simple components.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/opinion/15krugman.html
QuoteOp-Ed Columnist
The Making of a Euromess
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 14, 2010
Lately, financial news has been dominated by reports from Greece and other nations on the European periphery. And rightly so.
But I've been troubled by reporting that focuses almost exclusively on European debts and deficits, conveying the impression that it's all about government profligacy — and feeding into the narrative of our own deficit hawks, who want to slash spending even in the face of mass unemployment, and hold Greece up as an object lesson of what will happen if we don't.
For the truth is that lack of fiscal discipline isn't the whole, or even the main, source of Europe's troubles — not even in Greece, whose government was indeed irresponsible (and hid its irresponsibility with creative accounting).
No, the real story behind the euromess lies not in the profligacy of politicians but in the arrogance of elites — specifically, the policy elites who pushed Europe into adopting a single currency well before the continent was ready for such an experiment.
Consider the case of Spain, which on the eve of the crisis appeared to be a model fiscal citizen. Its debts were low — 43 percent of G.D.P. in 2007, compared with 66 percent in Germany. It was running budget surpluses. And it had exemplary bank regulation.
But with its warm weather and beaches, Spain was also the Florida of Europe — and like Florida, it experienced a huge housing boom. The financing for this boom came largely from outside the country: there were giant inflows of capital from the rest of Europe, Germany in particular.
The result was rapid growth combined with significant inflation: between 2000 and 2008, the prices of goods and services produced in Spain rose by 35 percent, compared with a rise of only 10 percent in Germany. Thanks to rising costs, Spanish exports became increasingly uncompetitive, but job growth stayed strong thanks to the housing boom.
Then the bubble burst. Spanish unemployment soared, and the budget went into deep deficit. But the flood of red ink — which was caused partly by the way the slump depressed revenues and partly by emergency spending to limit the slump's human costs — was a result, not a cause, of Spain's problems.
And there's not much that Spain's government can do to make things better. The nation's core economic problem is that costs and prices have gotten out of line with those in the rest of Europe. If Spain still had its old currency, the peseta, it could remedy that problem quickly through devaluation — by, say, reducing the value of a peseta by 20 percent against other European currencies. But Spain no longer has its own money, which means that it can regain competitiveness only through a slow, grinding process of deflation.
Now, if Spain were an American state rather than a European country, things wouldn't be so bad. For one thing, costs and prices wouldn't have gotten so far out of line: Florida, which among other things was freely able to attract workers from other states and keep labor costs down, never experienced anything like Spain's relative inflation. For another, Spain would be receiving a lot of automatic support in the crisis: Florida's housing boom has gone bust, but Washington keeps sending the Social Security and Medicare checks.
But Spain isn't an American state, and as a result it's in deep trouble. Greece, of course, is in even deeper trouble, because the Greeks, unlike the Spaniards, actually were fiscally irresponsible. Greece, however, has a small economy, whose troubles matter mainly because they're spilling over to much bigger economies, like Spain's. So the inflexibility of the euro, not deficit spending, lies at the heart of the crisis.
None of this should come as a big surprise. Long before the euro came into being, economists warned that Europe wasn't ready for a single currency. But these warnings were ignored, and the crisis came.
Now what? A breakup of the euro is very nearly unthinkable, as a sheer matter of practicality. As Berkeley's Barry Eichengreen puts it, an attempt to reintroduce a national currency would trigger "the mother of all financial crises." So the only way out is forward: to make the euro work, Europe needs to move much further toward political union, so that European nations start to function more like American states.
But that's not going to happen anytime soon. What we'll probably see over the next few years is a painful process of muddling through: bailouts accompanied by demands for savage austerity, all against a background of very high unemployment, perpetuated by the grinding deflation I already mentioned.
It's an ugly picture. But it's important to understand the nature of Europe's fatal flaw. Yes, some governments were irresponsible; but the fundamental problem was hubris, the arrogant belief that Europe could make a single currency work despite strong reasons to believe that it wasn't ready.
An interesting article, with points the "Better off with the Euro" crowd here should take heed of.
The inflation bit in particular; in terms of personal experience, lighting fittings made in Spain became more expensive than Italian fittings a few years ago. I don't know if anyone else has worked in the lighting industry, but Italy was always the byword for expense before that, and had been for several decades.
But what the article points out is really that Europe's problem is a kind of nationalism (maybe regionalism is a better term); the desire to stay in one's own country amongst one's fellow-countrymen. The solution isn't closer political cooperation, but rather policies that make labor more mobile - including public awareness of the desirability of mobility.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 08:55:06 AM
But what the article points out is really that Europe's problem is a kind of nationalism (maybe regionalism is a better term); the desire to stay in one's own country amongst one's fellow-countrymen. The solution isn't closer political cooperation, but rather policies that make labor more mobile - including public awareness of the desirability of mobility.
That is something that will hopefully increase with the new common European academic framework, in order to have academic credentials instantly acknowledged all over the EU. Even if generally speaking it's something that is currently workable, for certain specialities and professions it's a bigger problem. Mobility programs have also been funded for decades, and programs like Erasmus helps creating a greater desireability for moving.
QuoteThat is something that will hopefully increase with the new common European academic framework, in order to have academic credentials instantly acknowledged all over the EU. Even if generally speaking it's something that is currently workable, for certain specialities and professions it's a bigger problem. Mobility programs have also been funded for decades, and programs like Erasmus helps creating a greater desireability for moving.
I'm just hoping employers do recognise European qualifications well.
Its all well and good to say officially one qualification is equal to another but I could well imagine in a ignorant country like Britain at least they would see someone with a degree from a good European uni like Heidelberg or Uppsala or whatever and due to not having a clue what unis are good abroad (I didn't have the foggiest before I started looking into Sweden some might recall) will choose someone from a second tier British school like Sheffield or York instead.
As for certain professions...there you really do have a big problem. In Sweden the amount of people admitted to medical school is purposfully kept lower than the demand for doctors (the medics union wants to make sure everyone has a nice joib) so lots of Swedes end up going abroad to Romania and the like to study medicine.
Not to say other countries are inherantly bad but standards tend to be different across different countries. Not even lower in some cases, just different.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 14, 2010, 07:50:01 PM
In my very limited experience Italians, Portuguese or southern French are fairly similar to us. Open, social and all that. Swedes and the like, OTOH, won't even acknowledge your existence unless they are terribly drunk. Maybe a lack of sunshine thing.
You say open and social. We say touchy-feely, overbearing and invaders of personal space :p
But yes. The average Swede is very hard to crack.
In the meanwhile, it was finally found out how did Greece, with its unstable economy, manage to join the euro.
The answer is... Wall Street bankers helped it fudge the numbers.
Right, no surprises there. :rolleyes:
Particularly at fault is a certain Wall Street bank whose first name beguins with a G and the second one with a S, and is beloved by certain Languish posters, which hid billions of greek government debt so they could join the Eurozone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html?hp
Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe's Crisis
Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts.
(...)
Gary D. Cohn, president of Goldman Sachs, went to Athens to pitch complex products to defer debt. Such deals let Greece continue deficit spending, like a consumer with a second mortgage.
Don't expect it to end here. The banksters hid debts from lots of countries, and I know - since our Finance Ministers' top advisors are my ex-colleagues - that our deficit is WAY higher than the official numbers.
Governments shouldn't be led by unsophisticated hicks who can't handle financial information. either they do what they are doing, or are so incompetent that the Greek people should string em up.
Did you damage your keyboard?
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 08:55:06 AM
But what the article points out is really that Europe's problem is a kind of nationalism (maybe regionalism is a better term); the desire to stay in one's own country amongst one's fellow-countrymen. The solution isn't closer political cooperation, but rather policies that make labor more mobile - including public awareness of the desirability of mobility.
A quick (and rough) internet search indicates that as of 2007, approximately 15% of Florida's population were migrants who had moved into the state after the year 2000 (although I don't have a split of that figure between migration between US States and overseas immigration.)
For Spain the percentage of the total population who are not Spanish citizens was approximately 15% of the total population, with a massive increase in the 2000s.
Now, those figures could do with a breakdown into actual origins, and don't include the additional 700000 approx who immigrated to Spain in 2008, but they are suggestive that Spain has effectively received as much additional labour as Florida.
I suspect a proper analysis of the figures would reveal that the average skills level of the migrants to Florida was higher, however, meaning they were economically more valuable.
I do need to hunt down the relative economic growth rates of Florida and Spain, as well.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 15, 2010, 09:36:01 AM
A quick (and rough) internet search indicates that as of 2007, approximately 15% of Florida's population were migrants who had moved into the state after the year 2000 (although I don't have a split of that figure between migration between US States and overseas immigration.)
For Spain the percentage of the total population who are not Spanish citizens was approximately 15% of the total population, with a massive increase in the 2000s.
Now, those figures could do with a breakdown into actual origins, and don't include the additional 700000 approx who immigrated to Spain in 2008, but they are suggestive that Spain has effectively received as much additional labour as Florida.
I suspect a proper analysis of the figures would reveal that the average skills level of the migrants to Florida was higher, however, meaning they were economically more valuable.
I do need to hunt down the relative economic growth rates of Florida and Spain, as well.
I am not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with these numbers. The issue is not that Spain should get the same number of new people as Florida, it is that it should attract sufficient additional labor that labor costs do not rise. If 15% was sufficient to prevent this in Florida but was insufficient to prevent this in Spain , then the conclusion we should reach is that 15% was insufficient for Spain, not that Florida's percentage is good enough for Spain so we need to look elsewhere for the problem.
You will never have perfect labor mobility, of course, because of the marginal costs of actually moving, but the better one's economy's labor mobility, the fewer the localized inflation issues like those being discussed here. The solution isn't to do as well as some arbitrary other party (like Florida), but rather to do well enough to avoid the problem.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 10:07:31 AM
I am not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with these numbers. The issue is not that Spain should get the same number of new people as Florida, it is that it should attract sufficient additional labor that labor costs do not rise. If 15% was sufficient to prevent this in Florida but was insufficient to prevent this in Spain , then the conclusion we should reach is that 15% was insufficient for Spain, not that Florida's percentage is good enough for Spain so we need to look elsewhere for the problem.
Which is why I said I needed to have a look for the GDP figures for the two countries. :P Which I haven't done yet. :(
What the raw figures do show though is that the level of labour mobility superficially appears to be roughly the same in the two cases. Whereas many people here are arguing that labour mobility is much less in Europe than America.
Actually, I suspect that labour mobility is actually comparable between Europe and America. What is not comparable is family mobility, in that a higher percentage of Europe's workers move to another country for a year or two to work while leaving their families behind in the mother/fatherland.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 10:07:31 AM
You will never have perfect labor mobility, of course, because of the marginal costs of actually moving, but the better one's economy's labor mobility, the fewer the localized inflation issues like those being discussed here. The solution isn't to do as well as some arbitrary other party (like Florida), but rather to do well enough to avoid the problem.
I suspect, as I implied above, that the major issue between the two regions is the lower average skill set of a large number of the migrants to Spain. That would put an extra inflationary pressure on wages in Spain compared to Florida as their would be fewer candidates for the skilled jobs and this would not be shown in the raw figures.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 15, 2010, 09:18:46 AM
Particularly at fault is a certain Wall Street bank whose first name beguins with a G and the second one with a S, and is beloved by certain Languish posters, which hid billions of greek government debt so they could join the Eurozone.
I haven't really noticed; which certain Languish posters love Goldman Sachs?
Quote from: Agelastus
A quick (and rough) internet search indicates that as of 2007, approximately 15% of Florida's population were migrants who had moved into the state after the year 2000 (although I don't have a split of that figure between migration between US States and overseas immigration.)
Note that Spain is not a good indication; a good chunk of its immigrants come from South America - who already speak Spanish, if not the Castillian type - and other chunk are retirees from the UK and Germany, who don't care about the language anyway. There is also a good number of Portuguese, who can understand the language quite well.
Also, about the language one should note that we portuguese are famous for immigrating to Britain and Germany without speaking the local language.
(One study I recall noted that portuguese immigrants living in the UK could easily move to whatever city their new job required and had the usually required car and driver's licence, but felt discriminated because the simple fact that they could not speak one word of English)
Quote from: grumbler
I haven't really noticed; which certain Languish posters love Goldman Sachs?
When I posted stuff critical of GS' activities well over one year ago, I was insta-labelled an "anti-semite" by several posters for doing so. I don't remember who they were - it wasn't you, that I know.
I was thinking that on Spain too, but then I don't think Florida is such a premium example either- lots of Cubans and retirees.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 15, 2010, 11:08:07 AM
(One study I recall noted that portuguese immigrants living in the UK could easily move to whatever city their new job required and had the usually required car and driver's licence, but felt discriminated because the simple fact that they could not speak one word of English)
No, they are discriminated against because half of them are actually Brazilian, who firms get fined for employing. :P
[The above from personal experience.]
Quote from: Agelastus on February 15, 2010, 10:24:08 AM
What the raw figures do show though is that the level of labour mobility superficially appears to be roughly the same in the two cases. Whereas many people here are arguing that labour mobility is much less in Europe than America.
Tyhe numbers only show comparability of results between Florida and Spain; they say nothing whatsoever about actual labor mobility in the US or Europe.
What does say something about labor mobility is whether labor shortages have caused inflation in specific areas of the US or Europe, but not in others (or the reverse, the deflation of wages due to localized labor surpluses). You saw a bit of this in California and you see a bit more of it in New York City, but in neither case did it lead to the kinds of economic crises that Greece is suffering and Spain is possibly facing.
If Europe does, indeed, have a high degree of labor mobility (and I certainly am not arguing that it does not), then the problems Spain and Greece (and some others) are suffering are not from wage inflation at all. Right?
QuoteI suspect, as I implied above, that the major issue between the two regions is the lower average skill set of a large number of the migrants to Spain. That would put an extra inflationary pressure on wages in Spain compared to Florida as their would be fewer candidates for the skilled jobs and this would not be shown in the raw figures.
I am not sure what this has to do with anything. If Europe has the same labor mobility as the US, the people that move to Spain go there because they get jobs there doing the work that is offered. Florists are not going to Florida to get jobs as heavy equipment operators. The wole point of labor mobility is that there isn't extra inflationary pressures on wages, because as soon as wages increase a bit, more people move to the area to take advantage, and the extra labor decreases inflationary pressures. If this is not what is happening in Spain, then your argument that Europe ahs the same labor mobility as the US collapses.
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 15, 2010, 11:08:07 AM
When I posted stuff critical of GS' activities well over one year ago, I was insta-labelled an "anti-semite" by several posters for doing so. I don't remember who they were - it wasn't you, that I know.
It sounded like made-up bullshit when you said it, and sounds even more like made-up bullshit when you try to defend saying it. My suggestion is: don't try to fly that kind of bullshit here. You may not lose any credibility (because even if you sacrificed all the credibility you had, you would lose no credibility at all), but you do sacrifice good will.
There is a problem with that article. While a good part of the money was foreign and a good part of construction took place at the coastline, the real problem right now is that, encouraged by low interest rates, millions of people got up to 45-year mortgages on flats that will never be worth the same price again, all over Spain. As a 30+ year old without a mortgage, not to mention a regular job, a good salary and significant savings, I'm quite a rare sight.
Also, with the exception of a few Portuguese all labor attracted to Spain was naturally from without the EU, simply because Spain had very low wages to begin with (now even lower thanks to inflation and housing bubble).
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 02:13:28 PM
I am not sure what this has to do with anything. If Europe has the same labor mobility as the US, the people that move to Spain go there because they get jobs there doing the work that is offered. Florists are not going to Florida to get jobs as heavy equipment operators. The wole point of labor mobility is that there isn't extra inflationary pressures on wages, because as soon as wages increase a bit, more people move to the area to take advantage, and the extra labor decreases inflationary pressures. If this is not what is happening in Spain, then your argument that Europe ahs the same labor mobility as the US collapses.
There are two points involving labour mobility. Higher wages in one area compared to another OR a lack of jobs in one area compared to another.
Admittedly, the higher wages part is what is driving labour mobility in Europe, but it is all from east to west. I doubt the USA has the same wage differentials as Eastern and Western Europe does. The pay in western Europe is a lot higher for unskilled jobs as well as for skilled jobs than it is in the east. Therefore you get a large migration of unskilled labourers looking for work as well as skilled labourers.
I am fairly sure that the unskilled only move en-masse in the USA when jobs in their home region dry up, but I may be wrong about this.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 10:29:20 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 15, 2010, 09:18:46 AM
Particularly at fault is a certain Wall Street bank whose first name beguins with a G and the second one with a S, and is beloved by certain Languish posters, which hid billions of greek government debt so they could join the Eurozone.
I haven't really noticed; which certain Languish posters love Goldman Sachs?
He probably means teh Jews. :Joos
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 02:17:28 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 15, 2010, 11:08:07 AM
When I posted stuff critical of GS' activities well over one year ago, I was insta-labelled an "anti-semite" by several posters for doing so. I don't remember who they were - it wasn't you, that I know.
It sounded like made-up bullshit when you said it, and sounds even more like made-up bullshit when you try to defend saying it. My suggestion is: don't try to fly that kind of bullshit here. You may not lose any credibility (because even if you sacrificed all the credibility you had, you would lose no credibility at all), but you do sacrifice good will.
I don't even remember what it was. Euro craziness is so off the charts I don't always register it. I hold my fellow American (and Canadians and Brits) to a much higher standards.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 15, 2010, 03:16:30 PM
There is a problem with that article. While a good part of the money was foreign and a good part of construction took place at the coastline, the real problem right now is that, encouraged by low interest rates, millions of people got up to 45-year mortgages on flats that will never be worth the same price again, all over Spain. As a 30+ year old without a mortgage, not to mention a regular job, a good salary and significant savings, I'm quite a rare sight.
45 years? :huh:
Quote from: Agelastus on February 15, 2010, 03:22:22 PM
There are two points involving labour mobility. Higher wages in one area compared to another OR a lack of jobs in one area compared to another.
Admittedly, the higher wages part is what is driving labour mobility in Europe, but it is all from east to west. I doubt the USA has the same wage differentials as Eastern and Western Europe does. The pay in western Europe is a lot higher for unskilled jobs as well as for skilled jobs than it is in the east. Therefore you get a large migration of unskilled labourers looking for work as well as skilled labourers.
I am fairly sure that the unskilled only move en-masse in the USA when jobs in their home region dry up, but I may be wrong about this.
I understand what you are saying, but don't think that labor mobility is necessarily tied to either "skilled" or "unskilled" jobs. It just happens or it doesn't. If Europe has high mobility for skilled workers, then Spain would have attracted the skilled workers and the inflationary pressures would not exist. If the migration in Europe is only in unskilled work, then Europe doesn't have the same labor mobility as the US.
In the US, unskilled workers tend to move less because (1) unskilled workers are more likely to take an unskilled job in a completely different field than a skilled worker will, and (2) a move to areas where unskilled labor is paid more also tends to be a move to an area with a higher cost of living, so the move is often not a net gain in standard of living.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on February 15, 2010, 03:16:30 PM
There is a problem with that article. While a good part of the money was foreign and a good part of construction took place at the coastline, the real problem right now is that, encouraged by low interest rates, millions of people got up to 45-year mortgages on flats that will never be worth the same price again, all over Spain. As a 30+ year old without a mortgage, not to mention a regular job, a good salary and significant savings, I'm quite a rare sight.
45 years? :huh:
My loan just got refinanced out to a 45 year loan. Like I am going to live that long. Suckers. :lol:
Quote from: Martim Silva on February 15, 2010, 11:08:07 AM
When I posted stuff critical of GS' activities well over one year ago, I was insta-labelled an "anti-semite" by several posters for doing so. I don't remember who they were - it wasn't you, that I know.
You've been labeled an antisemite because of your long-standing hatred for Jews, not your long-standing hatred for capitalism and progress.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 08:55:06 AMThe solution isn't closer political cooperation, but rather policies that make labor more mobile - including public awareness of the desirability of mobility.
To some extent the closer political cooperation is necessary to support that. For example providing the necessary regulatory framework to avoid double taxation/double social security payments. But other than that I agree and think it's something that'll just develop over time. We've only had a single labour market for about 20 years I think so we've not developed that culture of movement yet; I think students who went on Erasmus will have it far more, for example.
As Marti points out, however, if the language ability is there and the economic benefit is strong enough then people will move. The UK, at the peak of EU-10 immigration, had several million Poles, Czechs, Baltics etc.
Is Martim the sock of Lucy Anus, or is he another Portugese anti-Semite?