Is Italy the Latest Failed Euro State?

[Nessus]

At least it didn't end in a question mark

[earthJoker]

Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Bahamas, Seychelles, Barbados, Antigua, Trinidad, St. Kitts, Botswana, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Uruguay, Mauritius, Dominica, Grenada, Panama, St. Lucia, Venezuela, St. Vincent, Brazil, and Costa Rica. These are all countries with a GDP per capita of above the global average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita), aren't ruled by particularly bad dictators, and don't rely upon oil for most of their income.

All bold are primarily consist of imported European settlers, and all italic primarily of Mestizos/mixed in Europeans. So what's left are some tropical islands, and Asian countries which aren't really better of than their Asian counterparts. And Malaysia and Venezuela have a lots of oil, even it isn't their sole income.

[Loki]

Um, a vast majority of Brazilians are mestizos. I don't quite get why being a tropical island is a reason to dismiss a country. And better than which Asian counterparts? You do realize that all of Asia was colonized, right?

Malaysia and Venezuela were fairly developed before oil became a prominent part of their economies.

[Hazir]

Um, a vast majority of Brazilians are mestizos. I don't quite get why being a tropical island is a reason to dismiss a country. And better than which Asian counterparts? You do realize that all of Asia was colonized, right?

Malaysia and Venezuela were fairly developed before oil became a prominent part of their economies.

Yes Loki, we get the message. In the long list of indefensible attrocities you defend we now have to add colonialism and imperialism. Is there anything you won't defend because you can't stop yourself ?

Now maybe we should move on to the wonderful things the Germans did using forced Jewish labour and killing the other Jews in Gas chambers. I'll take the position it was vile exploitation of human beings and murder and you can educate everybody and his poodle about how it was an economically sound policy and all the Jews should consider themselves lucky for such a rigorous genetic selection.

[Loki]

You need to learn to differentiate between making objective claims (x had a y effect) and offering subjective views (x was good). Nowhere did I say that colonialism and imperialism was moral. I did say that imperialism had many measurable positive effects that still benefit the former colonies, while acknowledging that it also had plenty of negative effects. Your line of reasoning seems to be: since x was immoral, we should deny any positive facts relating to x. It might make for good propaganda, but not for good science.

[earthJoker]

Um, a vast majority of Brazilians are mestizos.

No, 52% are white, non-mixed Europeans. Especially economic centers like Sao Paulo are dominated by white people.

I don't quite get why being a tropical island is a reason to dismiss a country.

Not many people living there? If you add all of them up, you don't even get close to the population of the failed country of Pakistan.

And better than which Asian counterparts? You do realize that all of Asia was colonized, right?

Thailand, Japan?

Malaysia and Venezuela were fairly developed before oil became a prominent part of their economies.

And that matters how to your GDP comparison of the current state?

[Loki]

No, 52% are white, non-mixed Europeans. Especially economic centers like Sao Paulo are dominated by white people.

Only if you go by self-identification, which is incredibly unreliable. Anyone who's even partially white claims to be white. European genes dominate, but most people are at least partially Amerindian or black.

Not many people living there? If you add all of them up, you don't even get close to the population of the failed country of Pakistan.

And why is this relevant? Which random criterion are you going to come up with next? In which way are your criteria related to the actual topic being discussed? Why not say that most of these people have dark hair, and therefore shouldn't be counted?

Thailand, Japan?

My mistake. Though you're going to base your entire comparison on two countries? There's a massive case of self-selection here. The reason these countries weren't colonized is precisely because they were already fairly developed.

And that matters how to your GDP comparison of the current state?

It matters because they developed economically without the oil.

[earthJoker]

Only if you go by self-identification, which is incredibly unreliable. Anyone who's even partially white claims to be white. European genes dominate, but most people are at least partially Amerindian or black.

When have you been the last time to Brazil? Most Paulistas are as white as the average southern European.

And why is this relevant? Which random criterion are you going to come up with next? In which way are your criteria related to the actual topic being discussed? Why not say that most of these people have dark hair, and therefore shouldn't be counted?

I don't see why we should give a country the size of Liechtenstein the same weight as one of the size of Germany. Even my own country is huge compared to some on that list.

My mistake. Though you're going to base your entire comparison on two countries?

I rather have two countries including one that has over 100Million inhabitants as reference than Barbados or St. Kitts.

[Hazir]

You need to learn to differentiate between making objective claims (x had a y effect) and offering subjective views (x was good). Nowhere did I say that colonialism and imperialism was moral. I did say that imperialism had many measurable positive effects that still benefit the former colonies, while acknowledging that it also had plenty of negative effects. Your line of reasoning seems to be: since x was immoral, we should deny any positive facts relating to x. It might make for good propaganda, but not for good science.

AND I said that all these positive side-effects were nothing more than that, side-effects of a morally wrong policy. They were driven by the desire of the colonizing power to keep territories under their control. They didn't build railroads to make the colony a better place but to make the colony a more profitable place. And that goes for every single improvement you can throw into this debate.

[Loki]

AND I said that all these positive side-effects were nothing more than that, side-effects of a morally wrong policy. They were driven by the desire of the colonizing power to keep territories under their control. They didn't build railroads to make the colony a better place but to make the colony a more profitable place. And that goes for every single improvement you can throw into this debate.

And how is this relevant to whether those policies ended up having a positive effect? Effects aren't measured by intentions.

[Hazir]

In real news; the British government no longer seeks repatration of powers in return for euro treaty changes. I guess there must have been a lot of arm wrestling going on to achieve that U-turn. Eurosceptics will not be pleased, but then again Samaras did not want to sign up and Berlusconi wanted to stay. Seems everything becomes liquid under the right pressure. Which makes me wonder if Angela Merkel is a brilliant strategist or really doesn't know what she wants.

[Loki]

She did bring about two regime changes, and without using a single division of panzers this time.

[RandBlade]

Little light-hearted but amusing:

It is a slow winter day in a little Greek village; times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the village, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.

The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.

The guy at the Farmers' Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the taverna.

The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him "services" on credit.

The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note.

The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.

No one produced anything.

No one earned anything.

However, the whole village is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works.

[Hazir]

I totally missed the news about Croatia, which is supposed to join the EU july 1st, 2013.

[RandBlade]

For those who think the failure in Italy is/was all Berlusconi's fault (I do think he had a large portion of blame for not doing enough but others did far worse ...)

Italy retirement age 'to go up'
Italy has moved a step closer to resolving its pensions crisis, which has been a key political issue. Prime Minister Romano Prodi has agreed with Italy's unions to raise the country's retirement age to 58 in 2008 from its current level of 57.

The deal waters down a measure passed under the previous government, which would have seen the pension age increase to 60 by next year.

Italy is struggling to get its finances in order amid huge national debts.
The agreed plan followed a marathon session of talks overnight and was later backed by Mr Prodi's cabinet.
The deal gives a massive boost to his credibility in placating the reformist and radical elements of his fractious ruling centre-left coalition, as well as the country's powerful unions, analysts say.
The measures, which could gradually raise the minimum pensionable age to 60 by 2013 for those who have worked for 35 years, will now be put to parliament for a vote.
Analysts believe that with the cabinet's support, they should be narrowly pushed through.
Demographic timebomb
Italy has the oldest population in Europe and one of the lowest birth-rates.
As a result, pension reform has been seen as key in reducing the country's debt levels, which are currently the highest in the European Union.
The Bank of Italy has said that the percentage of people over 60 compared with the working population could rise to 53% in 2020 and 83% in 2040, from 42% in 2005.
The savings from a higher retirement age - expected to cost about 10bn euros over 10 years - would also help to meet EU rules on Italy's budget deficit, which it must erase by 2010.
The former conservative government led by Silvio Berlusconi had bulldozed through much stricter proposals for reform, including raising the retirement age to 60 by next year and then 62 by 2014.
But after a furious backlash from the unions, Mr Prodi's coalition had been keen to reach a compromise plan.
Italy's deteriorating public finances have recently prompted ratings agencies Standard & Poor's and Fitch to downgrade its debt.

Prodi took a situation were the crisis in pensions was starting to be addressed by his predecessors government (Berlusconi, who later returned to power) from 57 years and watered them down to please the unions and his fellow lefties. What is happening now? Sorry no link but a Youtube video:

"ROME (Reuters / December 4) - Italy's welfare minister Elsa Fornero was reduced to tears at a news conference on Sunday as she outlined tough reforms to pensions contained in the government's plan to regain control of strained public finances and help solve Europe's debt crisis.

Under the austerity plan unveiled on Sunday, Italy will raise the minimum pension age for women and men to 66 by 2018, and will scrap annual inflation adjustments for many pensions.

"We had to... and it cost us a lot psychologically... ask for a..." Fornero said, but was unable to complete her sentence as she wiped tears from her eyes.

Prime Minister Mario Monti finished the sentence for her, speaking the word "sacrifice" that she'd been unable say."

Now its going to be retirement at 66 (still too low given their demographics IMO) and annual inflation adjustments are being scrapped so they'll be losing value too.

[Nessus]

Eat the poor

[RandBlade]

Are you capable of any intellectually honest discussions?

[Nessus]

Will my possible answer result in use of the ignore or ban function?

[RandBlade]

Ignore: No, I never ignore anyone.
Ban: No, I would never abuse powers like that.

[Nessus]

Well. If your analysis is that I'm unable to do so, how on Earth would me saying otherwise be worth anything?

[RandBlade]

That's not my analysis.

[Hazir]

Well by and large Italian politicians are a useless bunch. I would atill heap more blame on sleasy Berlusconi as he was in power longer than any of the others. He could at least have tried harder.

[RandBlade]

He did, Prodi reversed it though conceding to the unions. Typically lefty.

At least someone like Romano Prodi would never get to a senior position in the EU though, since Italians are such a "useless bunch" right? Must have been a doppelganger who became the President of the EU Commission.

[Hazir]

Like those are always selected from the best and brightest.

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/wo...crisis.html?hp Interesting piece, written by Hazir's alter-ego.

[Hazir]

The author forgot one important player in this field; the US has a bigger interest in saving the euro than it has in safe guarding the position of London as a financial center. To me it seems the 'special relationship' there mustbe very special indeed when Geithner tells the UK that it can't be so that the FED is acting in support of the EMU with the UK being obstructive.

P.S. On the front page there is a piece about how today's deal can break Obama's chances for re-election.

[RandBlade]

I'd rather be a bystander to a horrendous car-wreck than have been in the drivers seat.

In other news all the Eurozone* including Germany have been put on negative-watch for a reduction in their credit ratings.

* 15/17 nations except Italy which is already junk and one other already on it.

[Hazir]

The only reason why the UK is still a 'good risk' is that its bonds go straight to the balance sheet of the BoE. Not difficult to be AAA if you are you own biggest debtor

Also, since you used the metaphor; you are not a bystander looking at a car wreck, you are the pedestrian in the way with nowhere to run if that car wreck really should happen. All your banks will go bust with no hope for recovery. Also have fun trying to sell anything to Europe in the aftermath.

[RandBlade]

The only reason why the UK is still a 'good risk' is that its bonds go straight to the balance sheet of the BoE. Not difficult to be AAA if you are you own biggest debtor

Also, since you used the metaphor; you are not a bystander looking at a car wreck, you are the pedestrian in the way with nowhere to run if that car wreck really should happen. All your banks will go bust with no hope for recovery. Also have fun trying to sell anything to Europe in the aftermath.

You guys are going to be in SUCH trouble if we nuke ourselves. Then you'll be sorry.

[GGT]

Funny example you have there, as the finance minister of Germany said as recent as october 30th that there had been no serious discussions about that tax in the EU so far. But he did indeed indicate that the eurozone might go it alone. It also wouldn't be such a big problem to regulate it in such a way that it doesn't really matter where traders are located, move or make empty threaths about where they would move.

And how important do you think the EU will remain to a eurozone that has made significant steps towards federation itself? It is very thinkable that the eurozone will not have any qualms about creating a situation where the City of London can no longer be a major financial center for Europe unless it abides by the rules set in the eurozone. You know, the funny thing is that if you Brits let this come about by continuing your decade long sit on the fence, you will have achieved what you always wanted; the same treatment as Norway and Switzerland. Which translates as 'live by our rules, but don't expect to have a say in what the rules are'. Then maybe we'll allow you free trade with us.

And?

I believe in free will and free choice. If the eurozone wants to become a single state, let it. I just don't want to be in it, I want to trade with it.

What is your alternative? Join the single state - no thanks. Prevent the single state? You (personally) don't want that.

Anyway, somehow I don't think the French want to stop being French etc either.

I was reading back, since it's an extension of Rand's newer thread about the Eurozone becoming a single state (after this thread went to hell).

I'm still not quite sure what Hazir and Rand are fighting about, other than nationalism.

But it's worth asking why Cameron thinks London can or will continue to be a global financial center, in a world where technology and HFT can be more important than the location of consultants or portfolio managers...to the point he'd pull out of a cooperative trading agreement. I can understand the motivation, but only to a certain point...and then I'm perplexed.

It's not like the UK has the same trading power as a united Eurozone that includes manufacturing powerhouses like Germany. It's not as if the UK is an energy or commodity exporter. It's not like the pound sterling is used or valued the same way as the eurodollar. Seems like Cameron has decided that London is the epicenter of the global financial services industry, and nothing will be allowed to change that assumption. Why?

That just doesn't make sense to me, since even Wall Street in NYC is competing with HFT in other US states like NJ or CT, and Chicago mercantile and commodity exchanges are competing with local/regional traders that can bypass them entirely. It's a global world now. Is it just me, or has Cameron and his conservative coalition decided that London should remain important....simply because they've historically been important?