Languish.org

So who should take over Europe/the Eurozone given it's continued crisis ?

Might it be Germany or France, or will their squabbling allow the Russians in, whilst the British assume their traditional role of tut-tutting from the sidelines.*  :)




* Just to be clearly you can't vote for the British, as it goes against our historical role, however you choose to define that. 
The only way you can choose British is by going for the all encompassing conspiracy option, where by HM QE2 and lizard friends actually rule the world.

I told you hardheaded Irish-murdering limey bastards ten years ago on EUOT to join NAFTA instead of that continental abortion, and all we would've had to do was change the stationery to "North Atlantic", but no. You laughed.
Suckers.

And I say France.  So there.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 08:51:06 PM
And I say France.  So there.

I'd be happy with that, and we could go with the whole, please lets us in gig again.  :)

And who's the douchebag that voted USA?  We don't want to be holding that steaming bag of liquid shit.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 08:52:52 PM
And who's the douchebag that voted USA?  We don't want to be holding that steaming bag of liquid shit.

Hello Marshall, 1947 ?   :cool:

edit:
Oops my bad, that was back when decent politicians were not uncommon / actually existed.

Quote from: mongers on April 23, 2012, 08:55:18 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 08:52:52 PM
And who's the douchebag that voted USA?  We don't want to be holding that steaming bag of liquid shit.

Hello Marshall, 1947 ?   :cool:

edit:
Oops my bad, that was back when decent politicians were not uncommon / actually existed.

Yeah, no kidding.  We're all sold out here.  So solly.

How about a Scandinavian country? Let's see how well Scandiweenie socialism fares when the population at hand can't fit roughly into NYC.

Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2012, 09:08:58 PM
How about a Scandinavian country? Let's see how well Scandiweenie socialism fares when the population at hand can't fit roughly into NYC.

Lots of Scandis devolve a lot of politics though.  So in most of them healthcare is universal but delivered at the level of municipality.  Similarly 'nation' Scandi income tax is very low, most of it's levied by the municipality or commune which also decides how to spend it on things like healthcare.  So Scandinavian socialism doesn't fare with a population of a Scandinavian country, that's the point.

As to the question, France.  I want a Europe that matters on the world stage, that will lead and that'll enjoy it :)

Me of course. I'd need to kill off the eggplants,but a gentle policy of famine would do the trick.

U.S.  We integrate them one nation at a time as states.  Outcome?  Democratic supermajority forever.

According to some of the shriller comments on the Eurozone debt crisis, Germany is taking over Europe as we speak.

Quote from: Zanza on April 24, 2012, 01:34:17 AM
According to some of the shriller comments on the Eurozone debt crisis, Germany is taking over Europe as we speak.

I am afraid they will fail if Sarko loses.

Quote from: Ideologue on April 24, 2012, 12:25:25 AM
U.S.  We integrate them one nation at a time as states.  Outcome?  Democratic supermajority forever.

I'd say the end of the two-party system is more likely, since the euros would be able to keep their own constitutions for the most part.

If you want to destroy Europe, you just have to appoint Italy.

L.

Yes, but one has to be careful, to make absolutely sure the Italians in charge should come from places like Basilicata.

Quote from: Tamas on April 24, 2012, 01:43:05 AM

Quote from: Zanza on April 24, 2012, 01:34:17 AM
According to some of the shriller comments on the Eurozone debt crisis, Germany is taking over Europe as we speak.

I am afraid they will fail when Sarko loses.

FYP

give it to germany, it's their turn. and 3 time is a charm.
the russians and the french cannot be trusted.
The USA doesn't want to

QuoteThe pain in Spain could hit worldwide economy
By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: April 22

Just when you thought the world economy might be improving, along comes Spain. It's Europe's next economic domino, struggling to cope with big budget deficits, massive unemployment and an angry public. Will it fail — and, if so, with what consequences?

As it happens, the $80 trillion world economy splits roughly 50-50 between advanced countries (the United States, Europe, Japan and a few others) and developing countries (China, India, most of Asia, Africa and Latin America). Since the financial crisis, the advanced economies have struggled. In 2012, they will grow a meager 1.4 percent, forecasts the International Monetary Fund. Much of Europe is in recession; the United States (up 2.1 percent) and Japan (2 percent) grow slightly.

Although developing countries have done much better, their economies are now slowing, too. The reason: Rapid growth raised inflation. In China, inflation went from 3.3 percent in 2010 to 5.4 percent in 2011. India's inflation peaked at 12 percent. So central banks in these and other countries (their Federal Reserves) boosted interest rates to dampen price increases.

If Spain's crisis deepens Europe's recession, it could tip the entire world economy into a stubborn slump. The ramifications would be enormous, including: reduced odds of Barack Obama's reelection, assuming a weaker U.S. recovery; less political cohesion and more social unrest in Europe (even now, the European Union's unemployment rate is 10.2 percent); and growing pressures in many countries for economic nationalism and protectionism.

Spain is suffering a hangover from what economist Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute calls "the mother of all housing booms."

Just so. At the peak in 2006, "Spain started nearly 800,000 homes — more than Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom combined," noted a 2009 IMF report. Construction workers represented one in eight jobs (the U.S. figure at the height of the American real estate bubble was one in 18). Even after correcting for normal inflation, Spain's home prices more than doubled from 1995 to 2006.

One cause was a prolonged period of low interest rates coinciding with the introduction of the euro in 1999, says economist Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute. Another was that many property and construction loans were funneled through Spanish savings banks, cajas, "that were controlled by local and regional governments that had an interest in economic development," says Jeffrey Anderson of the Institute of International Finance, an industry think tank.

The bubble's collapse crippled the economy, left cajas with large losses and vastly expanded government deficits. Unemployment is almost 24 percent; among those under 25, it's 50 percent. Tax revenue has dropped sharply. In 2011, the budget deficit was 8.5 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). For 2012, the IMF projects a deficit of 6 percent of GDP compared with a target of 5.3 percent.

Spain's predicament is agonizing. To borrow at reasonable interest rates requires convincing financial markets that huge deficits are being reduced. But cutting spending and raising taxes risk deepening the slump, widening the deficit and fostering more street protests. The dilemma is plain: Austerity may produce more austerity, while the absence of austerity may produce a crisis of confidence. In addition, Spain's banks need more capital. Who will provide that?

Previously, Greece, Portugal and Ireland succumbed to similar predicaments. After interest rates soared on their bonds, they had to be rescued by loans from other European countries, the European Central Bank and the IMF. The trouble is that Spain's economy is twice as big as Greece's, Ireland's and Portugal's combined. And financially precarious Italy has an economy that's 50 percent larger than Spain's. Is there enough money to bail out these countries?

In truth, no one has a neat solution to end Europe's financial nightmare. Maybe Spain and Italy will escape calamity. Or perhaps more last-minute loans will buy time until the rest of the world economy revives and pulls Europe from the abyss.

Or perhaps not.

The weaker Europe becomes, the more it may drag down the rest of the world through three channels: damaged confidence and investment, fewer imports, and less credit to businesses and households. Remember: Europe is about one-fifth of the world economy, roughly equal with the United States. The 27 members of the European Union are the world's largest importer (excluding exports to each other), just ahead of the United States. And European banks operate globally.

The foreboding is undisguised. "For the last six months, the world economy has been on . . . a roller coaster," Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist, said last week. "One has the feeling that, at any moment, things could well get very bad again."

Wow.  I knew they were building over there, but never to that degree.

The inclusion of Germany in the poll is silly.

They are already in control. And it's not working out that well.


My vote goes for: a federated Europe. Not bloody likely though.

It's hard to form a federation when the northern half thinks that they'll forever be responsible for propping up the south.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
It's hard to form a federation when the northern half thinks that they'll forever be responsible for propping up the south.

We've done it for over 150 years.

I'm a traditionalist.  I think the Bavarian Illuminati should take over Europe.  Preferably through the Orbital Mind Control Lasers and the Fnord Motor Company.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 24, 2012, 08:44:33 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
It's hard to form a federation when the northern half thinks that they'll forever be responsible for propping up the south.

We've done it for over 150 years.

Nevertheless, when the US was formed during the rebellion, it was more of a partnership, and the states were a lot more independent.  Sure, after the civil war the conqueror was obliged to support the conquered, that's only right.

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 08:49:47 AM
I'm a traditionalist.  I think the Bavarian Illuminati should take over Europe.  Preferably through the Orbital Mind Control Lasers and the Fnord Motor Company.

:lol:

Good old fnord.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 10:12:16 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2012, 08:49:47 AM
I'm a traditionalist.  I think the Bavarian Illuminati should take over Europe.  Preferably through the Orbital Mind Control Lasers and the Fnord Motor Company.

:lol:

Good old fnord.

I knew someone would appreciate the reference. :)

Quote from: Iormlund on April 24, 2012, 06:57:02 AM
The inclusion of Germany in the poll is silly.

They are already in control. And it's not working out that well.

Only because they're too damned timid.

Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2012, 10:16:19 AM

Quote from: Iormlund on April 24, 2012, 06:57:02 AM
The inclusion of Germany in the poll is silly.

They are already in control. And it's not working out that well.

Only because they're too damned timid.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myfacewhen.net%2Fuploads%2F154-house-do-not-want.jpg&hash=7c19a0795dbd73d36f13f474670585613a30db3b)

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 24, 2012, 01:55:55 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on April 24, 2012, 12:25:25 AM
U.S.  We integrate them one nation at a time as states.  Outcome?  Democratic supermajority forever.

I'd say the end of the two-party system is more likely, since the euros would be able to keep their own constitutions for the most part.

Huh.  Maybe under your plan, you weenie.

Germany of course.  Third time's the charm

A Franco-German Empire with its capital in Aix-la-Chapelle of course.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
It's hard to form a federation when the northern half thinks that they'll forever be responsible for propping up the south.

Worked for us.

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 01:09:17 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
It's hard to form a federation when the northern half thinks that they'll forever be responsible for propping up the south.

Worked for us.

:hmm:

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 24, 2012, 02:31:58 PM
:hmm:

When the war was going on the South was pulling its weight economically.  Cotton was King.  It was only afterwards that is became a suction for Federal funds.

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 01:09:17 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
It's hard to form a federation when the northern half thinks that they'll forever be responsible for propping up the south.

Worked for us.

No it didn't.  Your ignorance of your own history is appleing... a-pauling... apolling?

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 02:48:06 PM
No it didn't.  Your ignorance of your own history is appleing... a-pauling... apolling?

Yes it did.  We kept electing Democrats who kept sending tons of money south.  Nobody raised too much of a fuss about it.

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 02:50:49 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 02:48:06 PM
No it didn't.  Your ignorance of your own history is appleing... a-pauling... apolling?

Yes it did.  We kept electing Democrats who kept sending tons of money south.  Nobody raised too much of a fuss about it.

After the fact.  That wasn't the case during the rebellion, and that's what we're talking about here.

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 03:06:42 PM
After the fact.  That wasn't the case during the rebellion, and that's what we're talking about here.

But that had nothing to do with the North being resentful about carrying the South economically.  In fact I do not even think that was true at the time.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 24, 2012, 08:44:33 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 08:36:56 AM
It's hard to form a federation when the northern half thinks that they'll forever be responsible for propping up the south.

We've done it for over 150 years.

I was thinking the same thing. :lol:

WTF, how did this turn into a ACW tent exercise ?   :mad:

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2012, 03:34:53 PM
WTF, how did this turn into a ACW tent exercise ?   :mad:

The Canadians decided it was because the North was tired of funding the South.

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 03:38:50 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 24, 2012, 03:34:53 PM
WTF, how did this turn into a ACW tent exercise ?   :mad:

The Canadians decided it was because the North was tired of funding the South.

Well we can agree on that; the Canadians need to be blamed for everything.   :)

Quote from: Valmy on April 24, 2012, 03:17:04 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 24, 2012, 03:06:42 PM
After the fact.  That wasn't the case during the rebellion, and that's what we're talking about here.

But that had nothing to do with the North being resentful about carrying the South economically.  In fact I do not even think that was true at the time.

You cannot have my point.