Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What direction would you like to see the eu take?
Options
-
01-03-2009 12:28am#1Ok first of all I'm just getting into the whole eu stuff so I'm not across everything but from what I can see, the EU itself has many problems but in my opinion its better to improve what we have got rather than destroy it.
I would like to see a EU where the citizens are actually seen as citizens of eu, I wish to see an EU which looks dynamic and actually impacts in some way on my daily life. What party do you think I should vote for in the elections?
What would you like to see the EU become in the next decade?
How can the EU create this lack of European idenity which is in Europe now?0
Comments
-
I'm gonna vote for ALDE, but it's my personal opinion.acontadino wrote: »Ok first of all I'm just getting into the whole eu stuff so I'm not across everything but from what I can see, the EU itself has many problems but in my opinion its better to improve what we have got rather than destroy it.
I would like to see a EU where the citizens are actually seen as citizens of eu, I wish to see an EU which looks dynamic and actually impacts in some way on my daily life. What party do you think I should vote for in the elections?
Have a quick look at my post here. All major European parties are selected by their ideology there (i.e. conservatives, liberals etc.). You may find something close to your own personal believes on that sorta things.
Get their asses out on the streets of their own cities.How can the EU create this lack of European idenity which is in Europe now?0 -
My tendency is currently for the Newropeans...
Geckos, smileys, and rubber ducks! Truly a Europe we can be proud of!
(that and ending the immunity from prosecution of officials, increased use of referenda, and other sundry non-duck-related malarkey...)0 -
Given recent events, the direction of the EU is now out of Brussels control to a much larger degree than ever before.
Its out of their hands now. The failure to firmly and unilaterally back the old Eastern Bloc states en masse with a substantial bailout package shows that those at the centre of Europe are willing to play the game...but only up to a point. (tha bailouts probably wouldnt have worked in any case...they didnt in Japan or anywhere else I can think of).
The real truth is that the crisis is so large, they have lost meaningful control. The spin machines will be in full tilt to deny this ofcourse and soothe the masses, but when people like George Soros, Faber and Rogers are comparing the situation to the collapse of the communist system, you have to sit up and listen.
These guys make money from reality, and they are very good at it. They see through the spin.
I wouldn't like to be depending on Germany during a crisis for Ireland.
Oh...wait a minute...
D'oh!0 -
Given recent events, the direction of the EU is now out of Brussels control to a much larger degree than ever before.
Its out of their hands now. The failure to firmly and unilaterally back the old Eastern Bloc states en masse with a substantial bailout package shows that those at the centre of Europe are willing to play the game...but only up to a point. (tha bailouts probably wouldnt have worked in any case...they didnt in Japan or anywhere else I can think of).
The real truth is that the crisis is so large, they have lost meaningful control. The spin machines will be in full tilt to deny this ofcourse and soothe the masses, but when people like George Soros, Faber and Rogers are comparing the situation to the collapse of the communist system, you have to sit up and listen.
These guys make money from reality, and they are very good at it. They see through the spin.
I wouldn't like to be depending on Germany during a crisis for Ireland.
Oh...wait a minute...
D'oh!
I presume we're talking about the recent summit, as per the FT's report:EU summit pledges aid for eastern states
European Union governments vowed on Sunday to conquer the financial crisis and recession gripping their economies by extending help to beleaguered eastern European states on a country-by-country basis and respecting the rules of the single European market.
Could it possibly be that your view is, in some way, rather less accurate than theirs? Certainly what you're saying and what they're saying appear to be diametrically opposed - you feel there was no offer of rescue, they appear to think that rescue was agreed.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scoffer...
If you are about to get your knees smashed by a loan shark for a 1000 Euro debt, and I hand you 2 euros, have I really helped you?
You see how that works?
What Im saying isnt diametrically opposed. Heres it is in a nut shell.
1. Don't bail anyone out. Let the market work it out. Its proven over history to be much better at it than governments. Communism collapsed...remember?
2. Bailouts don't work over the long term...never have, never will.
3. If the effect of the economic crisis is that the EU collapses and has to be replaced by something more robust, so be it. Let it collapse. Or prop it up, lets all copy Japan and, instead of working in a zombie company, lets all live in zombie political and economic infrastructure.
I know you'd be happy enough about that, but I wouldn't, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't either after a few years of experiencing it.
The guys in Europe know more than me and you...but do they, you or I know more than Soros?
I remember a man who thought he knew more than Soros did a few years ago...his name was Norman Lamont...remember what happened to him and his government? Soros shredded them.
You can bet against Soros if you like and keep piling your bets on out of touch politicians. Good luck with that.0 -
Advertisement
-
Scoffer...
If you are about to get your knees smashed by a loan shark for a 1000 Euro debt, and I hand you 2 euros, have I really helped you?
You see how that works?
What Im saying isnt diametrically opposed. Heres it is in a nut shell.
1. Don't bail anyone out. Let the market work it out. Its proven over history to be much better at it than governments. Communism collapsed...remember?
2. Bailouts don't work over the long term...never have, never will.
3. If the effect of the economic crisis is that the EU collapses and has to be replaced by something more robust, so be it. Let it collapse. Or prop it up, lets all copy Japan and, instead of working in a zombie company, lets all live in zombie political and economic infrastructure.
I know you'd be happy enough about that, but I wouldn't, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't either after a few years of experiencing it.
The guys in Europe know more than me and you...but do they, you or I know more than Soros?
I remember a man who thought he knew more than Soros did a few years ago...his name was Norman Lamont...remember what happened to him and his government? Soros shredded them.
You can bet against Soros if you like and keep piling your bets on out of touch politicians. Good luck with that.
Markets, left to themselves, work nothing out, because no market above person to person barter can exist in the absence of regulation. The current credit-based financial economy tends to blow up at intervals, as it is currently doing, and the blowups and booms are a good deal more spectacular in the absence of regulation.
Alas, as far as I can tell, you're a libertarian, which means there's no point me actually arguing this, since there's no way it will ever fit into your head. Similarly, there's no way you can ever accept the EU in any positive light, since the concept of a regulatory body of such a size is anathema.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Markets, left to themselves, work nothing out, because no market above person to person barter can exist in the absence of regulation. The current credit-based financial economy tends to blow up at intervals, as it is currently doing, and the blowups and booms are a good deal more spectacular in the absence of regulation.
Alas, as far as I can tell, you're a libertarian, which means there's no point me actually arguing this, since there's no way it will ever fit into your head. Similarly, there's no way you can ever accept the EU in any positive light, since the concept of a regulatory body of such a size is anathema.
cordially,
Scofflaw
The current credit-based financial economy tends to blow up at intervals, as it is currently doing. Really huge blowups and booms are a good deal more spectacular than ordinary because of ill thought out pre and post boom regulations and intervention.
FYP
Go and take a look at South Korea...and how they steered clear from Japanese type mistakes.
I do like liberty...you're right. The baggage that your statement implies is wrong though.0 -
there's no way you can ever accept the EU in any positive light, since the concept of a regulatory body of such a size is anathema.
Its not the size I don't like, its the results...they've had a decade to sort this and I don't know how many millions of regulations...has it worked?
Take a good look around you.
How you can cheer lead this situation is a complete mystery to me.0 -
Its not the size I don't like, its the results...they've had a decade to sort this and I don't know how many millions of regulations...has it worked?
Take a good look around you.
How you can cheer lead this situation is a complete mystery to me.
I'm not 'cheerleading this situation' - I have a different analysis of how we got here from you, and see reduced regulation as part of the problem rather than the solution. McCreevy, indeed, is a large part of the problem both here and more generally in the EU, although deregulation of the financial sector has been in the water for a while now.
Virtually every deregulation in history has been followed by a boom largely driven by credit instruments. Those booms have invariably been followed by a crash of depth proportional to the boom - and equally invariably by a re-imposition of regulation, followed by a period of calm. Eventually, it seems of benefit to some government or other to 'take the chains off' to 'speed up' the economy, with the entirely predictable results as per. It takes an enormous amount of faith to see regulation as the problem in that scenario - admittedly a faith that is widespread enough to constitute a church (the Austrian Church, perhaps?).
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Trace this entire episode back, and a key plank of it is a piece of regulation which Fannie and Freddie were forced to abide by which distorted the mortgage market in the US. Not many people are arguing with this.
This ALL started with interference.
Your faith that interference will solve the issue is as misplaced as the thought that the issue of too much debt will be solved by more debt.0 -
Advertisement
-
Trace this entire episode back, and a key plank of it is a piece of regulation which Fannie and Freddie were forced to abide by which distorted the mortgage market in the US. Not many people are arguing with this.
This ALL started with interference.
Your faith that interference will solve the issue is as misplaced as the thought that the issue of too much debt will be solved by more debt.
Eh, no, actually not many people agree with that, assuming we're talking about the Community Reinvestment Act (1977 and subsequent). The exceptions are libertarians and "free-market" true believers - but outside that relatively narrow encampment, people do not agree, or are indeed unaware that anyone has suggested it. Reasonably so, since the amounts and numbers involved are too trivial to make this anything other than a threadbare figleaf cover for the idea that excess regulation rather than a lack of it is to blame.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Eh, no, actually not many people agree with that, assuming we're talking about the Community Reinvestment Act (1977 and subsequent). The exceptions are libertarians and "free-market" true believers - but outside that relatively narrow encampment, people do not agree, or are indeed unaware that anyone has suggested it. Reasonably so, since the amounts and numbers involved are too trivial to make this anything other than a threadbare figleaf cover for the idea that excess regulation rather than a lack of it is to blame.
cordially,
Scofflaw
We definitely disagree on this point.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
Tiny sums?
One of us needs a fig leaf.0 -
We definitely disagree on this point.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
Tiny sums?
One of us needs a fig leaf.
Breakdown of borrowing:
Of subprime mortgages 9% were made by Fanny/Freddy inside CRA assessment areas, 37% by Fanny/Freddy outside, 54% by independent mortgage lenders not subject to the Act.
(Source: JCHS Enhanced HDMA Database)
Tiny sums - oh, I forgot to add, in context. Maybe that's what caused the difficulty. Still, homines libenter quod volunt credunt, which seems appropriate for a libertarian.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Why do you continually try to pigeon hole me as a libertarian? How many times do you need to be told? I like liberty, but I'm not a libertarian in the way that you think...sigh...
So the CRA was responsible for "only" >20% of subprime? You can say thats a tiny number...but in a hugely leveraged market like real estate...its massive.
What about the gradations below prime that arent as awful as subprime but which soon will be? Not counting those?
"If loans that win banks good CRA ratings were going to be made anyway, and if most of those loans are profitable, should CRA, even if redundant, bother anyone? Yes: because the CRA funnels billions of investment dollars through groups that understand protest and political advocacy but not marketing or finance. This amateur delivery system for investment capital already shows signs that it may be going about its business unwisely."
Written in 2000.
How well did politicians do in stopping this mess they created with legislation? Other people saw it...why didnt regualtors? There were regulators...right? Why didnt they see the credit bubbles, the Enron scandal, Bernie Madoff, the cricket guy and hundreds more? All teh regulations havent saved us. They never have in teh past, and they never will in teh future. Do you kwo why? because smart people will ALWAYS find a way around them. As true today as when twas written.
They cant stop these events...but its useful to look at how they react when the events come to light...
How did they react to the numerous warnings that the wheels were coming off due to the credit bubble? ZIP. They were warned by many people...and they did nothing. These people are CLUELESS. And you want to put more control into their hands and have more legislation?
You cant reduce the incidence of these events to ZERO with legislation or regulation. Not today, never in the past...but for some reason...it will be possible in the future?
It doesnt matter what you want, they're taking control...whether you like it or not...using your future tax dollars. The same politicians on whose watch the sht hit the fan...are now in defacto control of the retail banking system. What could possibly go wrong? Im sure they'll turn a handsome profit from it! :rolleyes:
Legislation took capital allocation out of the hands of experts and put it into the hands of amateurs. Probably the amateurs fault though...not the legislation. Kinda like the bailouts we're seeing today...bloody greedy bankers can't make the new regulations work.
Politicians to bankers: Heres what we want you to do....Lend to more people and businesses, dont ask for more money, follow bank base rates lower, give good rates on savings, rebuild your balance sheets.
Bankers....Good one. Now we need a sensible plan.
Politicians: Do it or you're fired.
banker: It cant be done. They are conflicting.
Politician: You're fired.
Its fecking LAUGHABLE what the policians want the banks to do. There's NO WAY they can accommodate all the conflicting objectives of politicians. Its a physical impossibility...but hey...lets regulate for it...lets legislate Fred Goodwins pension down. We make the laws...we dont like them, we can change them...contract law...whats that? We own the bank now...we can do what we please internally. Lets change the rules of the pension fund.
Notice none of the politicians are giving up their pensions though? werent they meant to over see regulations? Is the head of teh FSA giving up his pension? Or the BOE? Its a joke.
Scoff...you're a big government apologist, a thinly veiled socialist and an economic dimwit. They've had a decade of HUGE EU regulation...millions of rules...and we're still in the crapper. Your solution...more rules....wtf????? Seriously!
Id laugh right on your face if it wasnt so tragic that someone as intelligent and well read as you actually believes the stuff you spew. You dont have to extrapolate any more, you just have to observe. Government gets in the way...bad stuff happens....it gets out of the way...good stuff happens. You see how that works?
Lets just sit back and watch it all fall apart. It looks like its happening right now...right infront of your eyes...OPEN YOUR EYES.
Million of rules, huge central bureaucracy, a single currency...and look at us.
Regualtions cant protect against black swans...never have been able to, never will. They can cause them though.0 -
Why do you continually try to pigeon hole me as a libertarian? How many times do you need to be told? I like liberty, but I'm not a libertarian in the way that you think...sigh...
So the CRA was responsible for "only" >20% of subprime? You can say thats a tiny number...but in a hugely leveraged market like real estate...its massive.
What about the gradations below prime that arent as awful as subprime but which soon will be? Not counting those?
Very briefly - you have the figures wrong there. The 9% inside CRA assessment areas are the ones imposed on Fanny and Freddy by the CRA. That's 9% of the subprime market, not >20%.
Of course, while that may well be "massive", it's only "massive" by virtue of the nature of the market - which means that the other 91% is rather more "massive" for exactly the same reasons. Comparing like with like, you see.
In short, the thesis that the CRA was to blame for the subprime crisis requires us to believe that less than 10% of the loans were the "real problem". As I said, not a lot of people agree with that, although it is quite possible that all the people you agree with agree with it, if you see what I mean. Quoting the odd article doesn't prove anything either way, unfortunately, since I haven't claimed that nobody agrees with it, only that it's a minority opinion.
briefly,
Scofflaw0 -
9% of Fannie and freddies CRA subprime market share is >20% of their subprime exposure?? Since they were in all but name, underwriters for the entire market, this is important...dont ya think?
"Of course, while that may well be "massive", it's only "massive" by virtue of the nature of the market - which means that the other 91% is rather more "massive" for exactly the same reasons. Comparing like with like, you see."
No you're not. They are markedly different. The "I read it in a blog somewhere and think I understand it" comes through loud and clear.
Dont take my word for it....Go and check default rates in CRA neighbourhoods and compare them to default rates of national averages within subprime.
Why do you think these tranches of CDOs cant be valued for anything meaningful? Over 90% of Americans are still in jobs, oblivious to teh credit crunch and are still paying their mortgages. It only takes small default rate to have a massive impact in a highly leveraged market.
Keep sucking your thumb.0 -
A beautiful quote for the scoffer....couldnt have put it better meself
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/4934431/Its-the-Europhiles-versus-reality-and-reality-is-going-to-win.html
"Without a degree of coercion beyond what even this undemocratic, Sovietised swindle has attempted in the recent past, the national interest will in the end prevail.There have been auguries of this for some months, while we have waited for the breakdown of the condition of denial in which Europe's political class finds itself."
Mind you, its from the telegraph...tin foil hat wearing loonie libertarians!
Don't trust them...trust us...please give us another chance! We'll make it better...honest.0 -
A beautiful quote for the scoffer....couldnt have put it better meself
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/4934431/Its-the-Europhiles-versus-reality-and-reality-is-going-to-win.html
"Without a degree of coercion beyond what even this undemocratic, Sovietised swindle has attempted in the recent past, the national interest will in the end prevail.There have been auguries of this for some months, while we have waited for the breakdown of the condition of denial in which Europe's political class finds itself."
Mind you, its from the telegraph...tin foil hat wearing loonie libertarians!
Don't trust them...trust us...please give us another chance! We'll make it better...honest.
If your entire argument is that there are some people who agree with you, I can't fault it. There are, indeed, some people who agree with you. Incredibly, some of them write for the Telegraph! Admittedly, in opinion columns, but you can't have everything.
I'll be blunt - I've been over this argument with a few people, and, like many libertarian arguments (and yes, it's a libertarian argument) it simply doesn't make sense to people outside the 'church', while being followed with absolute conviction by those inside it. It's a dogmatic response ("regulation is the problem!"), sharpened up by the way that message is not being taken seriously by those who need real analysis - to whom it really is pretty clear that regulation is not the problem, but the lack of it is. I appreciate that opens the appalling prospect of governments increasing regulation, but at the end of the day the desirability of 'free markets' as an item of faith is just that - an item of faith. Taken rather further than we take it here, it leaves the US in a position where default is defined as a single 10 day late payment, and the result is queuing up for a soup kitchen run by your parish. Thanks, but no thanks - I'll keep sucking my thumb.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Whats your argument? More regulation? More debt? More bailouts?
Show me where they've protected/hastened recovery from events like these? You cant.
Any argument you've put forward doesn't need anything other than observation to disprove.0 -
Whats your argument? More regulation? More debt? More bailouts?
Show me where they've protected/hastened recovery from events like these? You cant.
Any argument you've put forward doesn't need anything other than observation to disprove.
More regulation, certainly - maybe even (gasp!) better regulation. Maybe less mad lending to all and sundry by the banks during booms.
After all, when you think about it, there's no particular reason why banks should have their gambling habits indulged in. The useful feature of credit is that it allows nothing to grow into something without having to bootstrap itself all the way. There's no particular value in allowing what is, in all but name, gambling, and while leveraging is a useful mechanism for getting more out of credit than might otherwise be the case, the drive to make maximum profits and sales by constructing ever taller and more fragile leveraged debt pyramids is rather less useful than prudent lending. Would regulation have slowed down the rush into bad debts? The right regulation undoubtedly would - whether we are capable of determining and implementing the 'right' regulation is a different question.
You might feel, by the way, that I'm not really taking your arguments seriously. I'm afraid you'd be right - the subject is sufficiently complex that we will not determine the best possible economic/fiscal model for all situations on this thread, and the emotional basis on which we approach the subject is sufficiently different to make it unlikely that either of us will suddenly convert to the other faith. You might say that I hold it to be self-evident that pure free-market idealism is as poor a philosophy as communism, but with a good deal less social value. I don't agree that 'observation' proves what you claim, and I don't even think that such 'observations' are meaningful, which renders any discussion between us rather less than fruitful - after a while, my choices narrow down to opting out or taking the mick, not because I feel I cannot argue against your, er, crushing points, but because I feel that they're not really worth serious consideration any more than the NWO conspiracy theories they often accompany. A bad attitude, perhaps, but there we are.
apologetically,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
What direction?
I'd like to see all EU puppets jump off a bridge.0 -
JonnyMaguire wrote: »What direction?
I'd like to see all EU puppets jump off a bridge.
It's an engaging image if nothing else.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
And fits nicely with the symbolism of bridges on our currency, and the current centrifugal forces from monetary union?0
-
-
More regulation, certainly - maybe even (gasp!) better regulation. Maybe less mad lending to all and sundry by the banks during booms.
After all, when you think about it, there's no particular reason why banks should have their gambling habits indulged in. The useful feature of credit is that it allows nothing to grow into something without having to bootstrap itself all the way. There's no particular value in allowing what is, in all but name, gambling, and while leveraging is a useful mechanism for getting more out of credit than might otherwise be the case, the drive to make maximum profits and sales by constructing ever taller and more fragile leveraged debt pyramids is rather less useful than prudent lending. Would regulation have slowed down the rush into bad debts? The right regulation undoubtedly would - whether we are capable of determining and implementing the 'right' regulation is a different question.
You might feel, by the way, that I'm not really taking your arguments seriously. I'm afraid you'd be right - the subject is sufficiently complex that we will not determine the best possible economic/fiscal model for all situations on this thread, and the emotional basis on which we approach the subject is sufficiently different to make it unlikely that either of us will suddenly convert to the other faith. You might say that I hold it to be self-evident that pure free-market idealism is as poor a philosophy as communism, but with a good deal less social value. I don't agree that 'observation' proves what you claim, and I don't even think that such 'observations' are meaningful, which renders any discussion between us rather less than fruitful - after a while, my choices narrow down to opting out or taking the mick, not because I feel I cannot argue against your, er, crushing points, but because I feel that they're not really worth serious consideration any more than the NWO conspiracy theories they often accompany. A bad attitude, perhaps, but there we are.
apologetically,
ScofflawWhats your argument? More regulation? More debt? More bailouts?
Show me where they've protected/hastened recovery from events like these? You cant.
Your Honour...I rest my case.0 -
Great argument there guys, as an Ayn Rand fan I'm a bit dismayed with the unwavering libertarian stance thrown about here at times, that said I don't know as much as you all. Are you both economists?0
-
Whats your argument? More regulation? More debt? More bailouts?
Show me where they've protected/hastened recovery from events like these? You cant.
Any argument you've put forward doesn't need anything other than observation to disprove.
The whole problem IMO is the regulations that existed weren't enforced so I don't see how the answer is abolish regulation since that only eliminates the problem of regulations not being enforced, it does not stop them performing the actions that the regulations existed to prohibit.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Posts by a banned user (and replies to him) deleted.0
Advertisement