• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Migrant boats in the English channel

Let it be enough to point out, that obviously the individual countries had introduced their own and individual sets of social policies which determined large parts and influenced almost all labor law severely in many of the polities. This would have been bad enough without the expanded intrusion of EU law and regulation as the increasingly anemic growth history of a number of the members demonstrates. But that was controllable albeit defectively by national instruments and measures. For instance, when the economy was running poorly its central bank could reduce the interest rate and push the economy forward or increase the rate, when inflation was too high for the structure of the individual country. Among others, these instruments were lost to the Deepening EU. This meant that large imbalances built up, internal inflation rates drifted way apart and that the very different economies could no longer react to this or to things called external shocks by economists that effect unequal economies quite differently and require very different reactions and policies. One monetary/currency policy does not fit all.
When an external shock occurred the response could not be effective and millions lost their jobs. But anyway...

As to the Sick Man of Europe theme, there was lost of literature in the mid to late 1990s so you could find some, if you were really interested in the topic. A quite nice piece was one of a number of articles from The Economist that you might want to start your research by reading. It does not cover all bases, but then that is never the case. It is only what people demand not knowing this for lack of reading. ;)
The sick man of the euro | The Economist
 
Let it be enough to point out, that obviously the individual countries had introduced their own and individual sets of social policies which determined large parts and influenced almost all labor law severely in many of the polities.

So a 180

This would have been bad enough without the expanded intrusion of EU law and regulation as the increasingly anemic growth history of a number of the members demonstrates.

Wait what? You are saying it is bad that national governments dictate most laws? And that you blame the EU for making it worse??????

As for the "expanded intrusion of EU law and regulation".. prove it. Prove that the EU has forced new laws and regulations on countries in such a number that it would constitute a massive problem. And especially prove that these laws and regulation have any significant influence on social, labour, tax and other laws/rules that are a national issue.

For instance, when the economy was running poorly its central bank could reduce the interest rate and push the economy forward or increase the rate, when inflation was too high for the structure of the individual country. Among others, these instruments were lost to the Deepening EU.

You live in a text book from the 1980s... this does not work anymore and no it is not because of the EU or Euro. Take the UK. It has next to no inflation and an interest rate that is a near record lows. So your whole theory there, is basically blown out of the water.

But regardless, having that ability is detrimental to the common market, especially if you have a government that is willing to devalue its currency to ensure a competitive edge over the rest of the common market. The UK tried that (as did the US), and guess what.. it did not work. The UK printed for years pounds like no tomorrow.. and yet exports at best were stagnant.. which by your text book theory should not happen.. exports should have gone through the roof because the pound was being devalued. Did it fix the economy? It certainly looks better on paper, but when you dig down, you soon realize that a lot of the growth is based on the City of London, which in it self is a problem. The UK budget deficit is still huge and its social problems that are a root part of the UK problem, are not being tackled. Instead those dirty EU citizens who dare go to the UK to work, are being blamed for everything along with the EU. At least Greece was forced to address its problems...

This meant that large imbalances built up, internal inflation rates drifted way apart and that the very different economies could no longer react to this or to things called external shocks by economists that effect unequal economies quite differently and require very different reactions and policies.

Bull****. Those imbalances build up because failed national policies that have been paved over by the ability to manipulate monetary policy. That is what Greece, Italy, Spain and many others have been doing for decades if not centuries. Instead of tackling the structural problems of society, they just devalued or printed more money, or some other monetary policy that "fixed" the problem at least in the short term.

One monetary/currency policy does not fit all.

Also a BS argument. Why? Because you can apply this to any country.. UK, US, Australia, China. What works for London, does not work for Belfast or Glasgow. Hence the pound is as a big a problem as the Euro according to your standard. Just think what the various US states, or even internally in a state .. could do with their own currency and ability to manipulate said currency and monetary policy? Right now they cant, and are forced to massive tax breaks for companies and run massive deficits which are hidden by accounting voodoo and federal funds. But imagine if California had its own currency.. how it could crush the other states... at least based on 1980s macro-economic theory.

When an external shock occurred the response could not be effective and millions lost their jobs. But anyway...

Again BS. Millions lost their jobs due to different issues.. depends on the country and those problems would not have been solved by having the ability to print more money. Do you really think that the Spanish unemployment would have been less, just because Spain had its own currency? Of course not. The structural unemployment in Spain is huge, and to fix that requires changes in labour laws, not printing of more pesetas.
 
This is not the article I as thinking of, but it comes quite close albeit from a slightly different angle. The sick man of the euro | The Economist
WTH?

You come back with a 17 year old article to demonstrate how the common currency that wasn't introduced (as cash form) until two and a half years after the article was written made Germany sick? 2.5 years before ?

Is that your "slightly different" angle?

What happened to the popular narrative of Germany having benefited from same common currency at the expense of all others (something I've also seen you claim)?
 
So a 180



Wait what? You are saying it is bad that national governments dictate most laws? And that you blame the EU for making it worse??????

As for the "expanded intrusion of EU law and regulation".. prove it. Prove that the EU has forced new laws and regulations on countries in such a number that it would constitute a massive problem. And especially prove that these laws and regulation have any significant influence on social, labour, tax and other laws/rules that are a national issue.



You live in a text book from the 1980s... this does not work anymore and no it is not because of the EU or Euro. Take the UK. It has next to no inflation and an interest rate that is a near record lows. So your whole theory there, is basically blown out of the water.

But regardless, having that ability is detrimental to the common market, especially if you have a government that is willing to devalue its currency to ensure a competitive edge over the rest of the common market. The UK tried that (as did the US), and guess what.. it did not work. The UK printed for years pounds like no tomorrow.. and yet exports at best were stagnant.. which by your text book theory should not happen.. exports should have gone through the roof because the pound was being devalued. Did it fix the economy? It certainly looks better on paper, but when you dig down, you soon realize that a lot of the growth is based on the City of London, which in it self is a problem. The UK budget deficit is still huge and its social problems that are a root part of the UK problem, are not being tackled. Instead those dirty EU citizens who dare go to the UK to work, are being blamed for everything along with the EU. At least Greece was forced to address its problems...



Bull****. Those imbalances build up because failed national policies that have been paved over by the ability to manipulate monetary policy. That is what Greece, Italy, Spain and many others have been doing for decades if not centuries. Instead of tackling the structural problems of society, they just devalued or printed more money, or some other monetary policy that "fixed" the problem at least in the short term.



Also a BS argument. Why? Because you can apply this to any country.. UK, US, Australia, China. What works for London, does not work for Belfast or Glasgow. Hence the pound is as a big a problem as the Euro according to your standard. Just think what the various US states, or even internally in a state .. could do with their own currency and ability to manipulate said currency and monetary policy? Right now they cant, and are forced to massive tax breaks for companies and run massive deficits which are hidden by accounting voodoo and federal funds. But imagine if California had its own currency.. how it could crush the other states... at least based on 1980s macro-economic theory.



Again BS. Millions lost their jobs due to different issues.. depends on the country and those problems would not have been solved by having the ability to print more money. Do you really think that the Spanish unemployment would have been less, just because Spain had its own currency? Of course not. The structural unemployment in Spain is huge, and to fix that requires changes in labour laws, not printing of more pesetas.

That is so (dishonestly?) that it is sad. Only one question. What does 180 mean? I hope it is not an indication, that you did not understand the arguments and think that it was a change in direction.
 
WTH?

You come back with a 17 year old article to demonstrate how the common currency that wasn't introduced (as cash form) until two and a half years after the article was written made Germany sick? 2.5 years before ?

Is that your "slightly different" angle?

What happened to the popular narrative of Germany having benefited from same common currency at the expense of all others (something I've also seen you claim)?

I used "a 17 years old article" to show that the topic has been well discussed for a number of years and is now old hat among economics professionals and those that are interested.

As to the Germans having profited by the Euro, you would have to name the context to which the statement was attached. I suspect I know, but it would be nice to know your exact question.
 
That is so (dishonestly?) that it is sad. Only one question. What does 180 mean? I hope it is not an indication, that you did not understand the arguments and think that it was a change in direction.

180 means you reversed your stance...

and I fully understand what you are saying.. do you?, because you are all over the place, using text book theories that have been utterly destroyed the last decade.. and you are contradicting yourself.
 
Only thing that seems worthy of referencing is the bolded
I used "a 17 years old article" to show that the topic has been well discussed for a number of years and is now old hat among economics professionals and those that are interested.

As to the Germans having profited by the Euro, you would have to name the context to which the statement was attached. I suspect I know, but it would be nice to know your exact question.
.............and that, like the rest of your post, does nothing to solidify your original claim.

Which read, in its excerpt of pertinence here
You don't really think that Germany were the "Sick Man of Europe" and lost a decade's growth for nothing do you. It was the same Euro that is pushing France into street unrest right now.

To then be, as pointed out, "evidenced" by an article pre-dating the currency by 2.5 years.

Frankly, when it comes to making concise arguments, you appear to be truly thrashing around in total lack of direction.
 
Only thing that seems worthy of referencing is the bolded.............and that, like the rest of your post, does nothing to solidify your original claim.

Which read, in its excerpt of pertinence here

To then be, as pointed out, "evidenced" by an article pre-dating the currency by 2.5 years.

Frankly, when it comes to making concise arguments, you appear to be truly thrashing around in total lack of direction.

Actually not, as the Euro was introduced as book money in 1999. But the exchange rate had been at work for some time then, if you will recall. We were already arbitraging the govies at that time.
 
180 means you reversed your stance...

and I fully understand what you are saying.. do you?, because you are all over the place, using text book theories that have been utterly destroyed the last decade.. and you are contradicting yourself.

If you say so. But it would help, if you did some economics, before you bubbled such broad and general statements such as: " text book theories that have been utterly destroyed the last decade". That makes it more understandable, that you would not understand the economic arguments, however.
 
Actually not, as the Euro was introduced as book money in 1999. But the exchange rate had been at work for some time then, if you will recall. We were already arbitraging the govies at that time.
You can spin and twist this any way you like, your argument of the Euro having made Germany the sick man of Europe remains nonsensical.

All attempts by you to give it some substance so far hopelessly failed.
 
You can spin and twist this any way you like, your argument of the Euro having made Germany the sick man of Europe remains nonsensical.

All attempts by you to give it some substance so far hopelessly failed.

Not at all. The currency and lower rates would have corrected the down turn relatively quickly but could not after the exchange rate was fixed. Instead, German the price of German labor was stuck at the uncompetitive level that the high valuation of the D-Mark on entry nailed tight. The result was recession followed by stagnation with unemployment reaching somewhere near 5 millions and about 11.5 percent. This did reduce domestic inflation (non-tradables) compared to other Euro member countries thus increasing competitiveness but slowly, so that the economy did not begin to catch up again till about 2007.
 
Not at all. The currency and lower rates would have corrected the down turn relatively quickly but could not after the exchange rate was fixed. Instead, German the price of German labor was stuck at the uncompetitive level that the high valuation of the D-Mark on entry nailed tight. The result was recession followed by stagnation with unemployment reaching somewhere near 5 millions and about 11.5 percent. This did reduce domestic inflation (non-tradables) compared to other Euro member countries thus increasing competitiveness but slowly, so that the economy did not begin to catch up again till about 2007.
Seeing how this has drifted considerably away from the issue of migrant boats in the channel by now, I'll end this on the parting remark that the case and scenario you describe above is as little salient in factuality as everything you preceded it with.

If you want to discuss Germany's economic state before, during and after the introduction of the common currency, start a thread of your own on it.
 
Seeing how this has drifted considerably away from the issue of migrant boats in the channel by now, I'll end this on the parting remark that the case and scenario you describe above is as little salient in factuality as everything you preceded it with.

If you want to discuss Germany's economic state before, during and after the introduction of the common currency, start a thread of your own on it.

I doubt I would have digressed so far, had not someone latched onto an aside and blown it up with incorrect statements and accusations to maneuver away from what obviously is a thorn in his side and chip on his shoulder.
 
I doubt I would have digressed so far, had not someone latched onto an aside and blown it up with incorrect statements and accusations to maneuver away from what obviously is a thorn in his side and chip on his shoulder.
That didn't happen.

What took the whole thing off at an angle started with your post #6.
 
Back
Top Bottom