From the Economist - They’re buying it: Europe’s economy

The Economist, "They’re buying it: Europe’s economy"

Many Europeans suffer from PESD, or Post Euro-crisis Stress Disorder: despite a robust recovery, they keep looking about anxiously, expecting something to explode. Today’s euro-area purchasing managers’ index (PMI) will have calmed some of those nerves. It came in at 57.5, a 79-month high—reflecting a long expansion that is still going full-steam.

The bloc’s GDP is growing by well over 2% per year. Unemployment is below 9% for the first time since 2009. Markets have shrugged off the European Central Bank’s announcement that it will taper quantitative easing, and inflation is just 1.4%. The mighty European export machine is humming along, up 5.6% in September compared with last year.

Germany’s failure to form a government may have brought down the continent’s mood, but corporate types in Berlin are still broadly optimistic—as are those in Paris. When even French businesses turn cheery, the mood is bright indeed.

Click to expand...

'Nuff said ... ?

Lafayette said:

The Economist, "They’re buying it: Europe’s economy"



'Nuff said ... ?

Click to expand...

Yeah, whodathunkit?

Darn scoundrels simply won't abide by forecasts.:lol:

It is only a natural reaction after an economic crisis like we had. For some reason, these "experts" and business media folk expect people to react like nothing happened.. highly unrealistic, especially in Europe. One might expect it of Americans or Brits, but certainly not Germans, Spanish, or French. They are not big spenders in the first place, and after being hurt by the crisis, of course they will be extra cautious. It is amazing how these experts forget history and how Europeans react after economic crisis.

Chagos said:

Yeah, whodathunkit? Darn scoundrels simply won't abide by forecasts.

Click to expand...

Well, the "uptake" had started in America in 2014, two years before the end of Obama's term.

Did anyone notice? Nope.

Did voters vote against Hillary because they thought the Dems were "do nothings"? Which is kinda-sorta inevitable when a Replicant-run HofR (as of 2010) refuses all stimulus-spending and thus could nix budget-expenditures of a PotUS. (Who gave them their HofR "big-win" in 2010? We, the sheeple!)

They would not budge about the budget, spewing nonsense about Austerity Governance in a full-fledged Great Recession. Why?

It's obvious why. They wanted to unseat Obama in 2012, so the Replicant-controlled HofR willingly imposed a strategy of No Stimulus-Spending That Slowed Employment Growth!

It didn't work, did it? Obama won reelection.

But, it was not until two years later, 2014, that the economy - all on its own - finally started creating jobs.

Don't believe that explanation? Then have a look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment-to-population Ratio (from here):


Worse yet, on the chart shown, let's extend that line to see when it gets back to the level of 63% that existed in 2007. I did it. The US does not recuperate to that level until 2025!

Now show me how I got the facts all wrong, wrong, wrong regarding the Great Recession ...

And finally, what you don't see on that chart is the fact that the jobs that existed in 2008 have all long-since gone. They are mostly out of manufacturing and have been replaced by considerable investment in factory automation.

So, what will those people do. If they don't get some better qualifications they will be earning the minimum wage. Or worse yet!

Which is why IT IS ESSENTIAL that the Federal Government fund schooling necessary for people to obtain the skill-sets that they did not have before the Great Recession.

Of course, this government will do nothing. Because it fundamentally believes nothing need be done.

Which is why Donald Dork is a one-time PotUS ...

Lafayette said:

Well, the "uptake" had started in America in 2014, two years before the end of Obama's term.

Did anyone notice? Nope.

Did voters vote against Hillary because they thought the Dems were "do nothings"? Which is kinda-sorta inevitable when a Replicant-run HofR (as of 2010) refuses all stimulus-spending and thus could nix budget-expenditures of a PotUS. (Who gave them their HofR "big-win" in 2010? We, the sheeple!)

They would not budge about the budget, spewing nonsense about Austerity Governance in a full-fledged Great Recession. Why?

It's obvious why. They wanted to unseat Obama in 2012, so the Replicant-controlled HofR willingly imposed a strategy of No Stimulus-Spending That Slowed Employment Growth!

It didn't work, did it? Obama won reelection.

But, it was not until two years later, 2014, that the economy - all on its own - finally started creating jobs.

Don't believe that explanation? Then have a look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment-to-population Ratio (from here):

Worse yet, on the chart shown, let's extend that line to see when it gets back to the level of 63% that existed in 2007. I did it. The US does not recuperate to that level until 2025!

Now show me how I got the facts all wrong, wrong, wrong regarding the Great Recession ...

Click to expand...

Hey buddy, you're preaching to the choir here. IOW same hymm sheet.

Chagos said:

Hey buddy, you're preaching to the choir here. IOW same hymm sheet.

Click to expand...

Hey Buddy, you think that my comment was just for YOU?

This is a debate-forum, and there are good many people beside yourself who follow it!

Remember, there's an "audience" when you post here ...

Lafayette said:

Hey Buddy, you think that my comment was just for YOU?

This is a debate-forum, and there are good many people beside yourself who follow it!

Remember, there's an "audience" when you post here ...

Click to expand...

Well, you did quote me which denotes response being equally to me.

But never mind.

Chagos said:

Well, you did quote me which denotes response being equally to me.

But never mind.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did quote you. But that by no means indicates that what I write is in direct response to you and you alone.

This is not an email-system. It is a debate-forum! When will you (plural) understand that fact.

If you want, there are Message Boards elsewhere to write whatever is on your mind. This place here is NOT a Message Board! It calls itself a DEBATE FORUM.

Debate: a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting (or legislative assembly), in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

Get it? You are in a Public Meeting.

We don't vote here in this forum. We "like" comments, which is good-enough.

Lafayette said:

The Economist, "They’re buying it: Europe’s economy"

'Nuff said ... ?

Click to expand...

It's a house of cards with many of the large economies in the EU zone being artificially propped up (e.g. Span/Italy). This is demonstrated by how much power Germany has, since it's basically the sugar daddy of the rest of the EU so they basically have to listen to them.

Lafayette said:

Yes, I did quote you. But that by no means indicates that what I write is in direct response to you and you alone.

This is not an email-system. It is a debate-forum! When will you (plural) understand that fact.

If you want, there are Message Boards elsewhere to write whatever is on your mind. This place here is NOT a Message Board! It calls itself a DEBATE FORUM.

Debate: a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting (or legislative assembly), in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

Get it? You are in a Public Meeting.

We don't vote here in this forum. We "like" comments, which is good-enough.

Click to expand...

I said never mind, sooo

never mind.

Lafayette said:

Yes, I did quote you. But that by no means indicates that what I write is in direct response to you and you alone.

This is not an email-system. It is a debate-forum! When will you (plural) understand that fact.

If you want, there are Message Boards elsewhere to write whatever is on your mind. This place here is NOT a Message Board! It calls itself a DEBATE FORUM.

Debate: a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting (or legislative assembly), in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.

Get it? You are in a Public Meeting.

We don't vote here in this forum. We "like" comments, which is good-enough.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

This is not the topic of the thread. Please drop it and move on.

Fishking said:

It's a house of cards with many of the large economies in the EU zone being artificially propped up (e.g. Span/Italy). This is demonstrated by how much power Germany has, since it's basically the sugar daddy of the rest of the EU so they basically have to listen to them.

Click to expand...

They should have been left to fail?

Yes, they made a mistake. It's been corrected.

Time to move on, because that mistake is extremely unlikely to ever happen again. The EU Central Bank will be all-over a country that indebts itself by trying to borrow Euros (on the open-market) to finance employment out of make-work programs.

The Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) is an agreement, among the 28 Member states of the European Union, to facilitate and maintain the stability of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The rule is there clearly stated, as all countries (wanting to join the Euro-zone) acknowledged when they signed the agreement regarding a common currency called the Euro. The debt-limit stipulated is 3% of GDP.

The oversight authorities at the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) were sleeping as countries, in the Great Recession (2008 and further), tried to maintain employment by means of government spending. But, they went into very serious debt to do so. (See here.)

PS: Since that tragic period, France is just-nowadays finally getting its debt down to the 3% level.

Fishking said:

It's a house of cards with many of the large economies in the EU zone being artificially propped up (e.g. Span/Italy). This is demonstrated by how much power Germany has, since it's basically the sugar daddy of the rest of the EU so they basically have to listen to them.

Click to expand...

Yes, Europe is lucky to have Germans who want to work and work-efficiently.

Otherwise the EU would be in very, very deep sneakers.

Otoh, what happened to the vote on the Hard-Right in Germany?

Let's presume that it is a bunch of voters who traditionally vote Right-wing, but decided to "send a message" and voted Hard-Right. So, now it's back to the boys to play-politics! (Boys will be boys!)

And, goodness me, WOW! - the inability to form a government could permanently sideline Angela*. They didn't think of that though, did they?!?

Once having achieved PM, she might just walk away from it all. She did her best for her country, which was better than most who'd been PM previously. Hmmmn, maybe we could convince her to become American and run again here!!?!! Nah.

(Angela who ... ? ;^)

Lafayette said:

They should have been left to fail?

Click to expand...

By no means. I'm simply saying that there are still some large EU members with troubling economies. They may fix it but it seems like the fix may just be kicking the can down the road for others to deal with, not too dissimilar to what the US does.

EU GDP GROWTH IS BACK

Fishking said:

By no means. I'm simply saying that there are still some large EU members with troubling economies. They may fix it but it seems like the fix may just be kicking the can down the road for others to deal with, not too dissimilar to what the US does.

Click to expand...

More than some. But for the most part, the recalcitrance of allowing a massive wave of migrants to "invade" Europe was also not only a misfortune for Europe, but also a mistake. Why did it happen?

Because Europe has no Executive Body and when events like massive migration happens, there is "nobody in charge". Brussels-Berlaymont (tantamount to Washington-WhiteHouse) has no mandate to dictate policy, only execute it in the countries. First the countries commonly agree on policy, and only then does Brussels facilitate/oversee its execution.

Not even Angela, who allowed migrants to enter, could manage the situation - despite the fact that with massive retirements Germany actually needs the manpower!

Never mind - the hullaballoo blows-over once EU GDP-growth is back. And as the link given shows, it IS back.

SO WHAT HAPPENS?

The hardest hit EU-country, because it is the closest, Italy is sending the immigrants back presently - that is, those that want to go. They are mostly going back through Libya.

What happened and will happen goes like this:
*In 2008/9 the Great Recession occurred in the US.
*And it migrated to Europe.
*But also affected greatly Africa and the Middle-east, this latter suffering from a war with ISIS.
*Which sparked a flood of people either looking for work or fleeing war.
*The reasons for leaving their respective countries are changing as the general economy improves.
*In time most will indeed return because the EU will be rehiring its own unemployed long-before any refugees.
*Meaning that more and more will be returning.

Which is, I admit, 50% theory and 50% factual reasoning ...

Fishking said:

By no means. I'm simply saying that there are still some large EU members with troubling economies. They may fix it but it seems like the fix may just be kicking the can down the road for others to deal with, not too dissimilar to what the US does.

Click to expand...

"Troubling" is an understatement. And crowing that "eu growth is back" is unappetising shnuckery and rather disgusting, after having cast populations across Euroland out of work and often funds for barest necessities for an ideological totem.

When the Euro was installed these things were known to be unavoidable without much more intrusion into the sovereignty of the nations and the transferral of power to the amorphously governed Euroland bureaucracies. The populations did not want so deep cuts into their independence and, in fact, was and still is illegal in some jurisdictions. This has only been possible by support from high courts that do not pass decisions based on the law in these regards. This was surprisingly candidly admitted by the president of the German constitutional court in a meeting of the Forum Politic at tje beginning of the year.

So yes, it is true that some growth has been achieved albeit from a diminished level. But to praise it is not only to miss or worse to attempt to obfuscate the real and continuing problems. And it is totally fascist to ignore the tens of millions of lives so negatively impacted to achieve the nation building goals of an ideological movement.

Lafayette said:

EU GDP GROWTH IS BACK

Click to expand...

Yes and has been a while. Only one barely growing is the UK, so when she leaves the growth numbers will improve even more.

More than some. But for the most part, the recalcitrance of allowing a massive wave of migrants to "invade" Europe was also not only a misfortune for Europe, but also a mistake. Why did it happen?

Click to expand...

This is for another discussion, but it was kind of impossible to do anything other than what was done... if we were to stay within human rights and kill hundreds of thousands of people. But another thread please.

Because Europe has no Executive Body and when events like massive migration happens, there is "nobody in charge".

Click to expand...

It does, it is the EU commission.. kinda. The EU commission is in charge to push the policies set down by the legislative branch aka the Council of Ministers. While not a more traditional executive body, it the EU commission is the branch of government that gets things done according to the law and policies set down.

Brussels-Berlaymont (tantamount to Washington-WhiteHouse)

Click to expand...

LOL no. If you were going to make a comparison, then find the home of the White House Chief of Staff and that would be a far better comparison.

has no mandate to dictate policy, only execute it in the countries.

Click to expand...

Correct, that is how most countries are designed. The bureaucratic machine does not dictate policy, it carries it out.

First the countries commonly agree on policy, and only then does Brussels facilitate/oversee its execution.

Click to expand...

Yes, here you are correct.. the above was highly inaccurate though.

Not even Angela, who allowed migrants to enter, could manage the situation - despite the fact that with massive retirements Germany actually needs the manpower!

Click to expand...

Merkel managed the situation as best as she could and it did have its benefits. One of the problems of the current EU policy on migration has been certain countries refusing to share the burden of refugees... this includes Britain, Poland and Hungary. This has meant that the policy put in place long ago, is not fit for duty in today's world, but because of these countries refusal to renegotiate the policy, usually because they want to include internal EU migration into the mix /wave UK, the limited EU policy from 20+ years ago is still in place.

The current EU policy on borders is rather simple. Each EU country has the duty to patrol their external borders of the EU, and any refugee and migrant caught going over the border is to be registered in the first country. All costs is to be paid by the countries themselves. This sounds great on paper, and when the numbers are in the thousands, but when we are talking hundreds of thousands in 1 or 2 specific countries then the burden on the individual country becomes unsustainable with no real recourse to get aid from other EU members (expect if the individual members want to give). Add to that, a system where there is no common ruleset on who can and can not apply for asylum, and most importantly agreements with refugees/illegal migrants home countries for extradition back home, and you have a problem.

The hardest hit EU-country, because it is the closest, Italy is sending the immigrants back presently - that is, those that want to go. They are mostly going back through Libya.

Click to expand...

They are all sending back illegals including Germany, something we dont hear in the media.. wonder why. For example, the other day Denmark attempted to sent a Moroccan man home, but the only reason we know about this, is the guy resisted and the police had to use violence to restrain him and that ultimately cost him his life. The problem is as stated above, each individual country has individual agreements with migrants home countries. That means a country like Denmark has very little leverage with Nigeria, but the UK has tons. Nigeria can say to Denmark, **** off, where as they dont dare do that to the UK. Migrants know the rules, that is why Egyptians till recently went to Germany to seek asylum, because Germany was one of the only countries in the EU who listed Egypt as an unsafe place. That has now changed after the 2015 migrant crisis, which is one of the benefits...

Only solution is a change to the migration agreement and a common asylum agreement. Bonding together as a block to reach agreements with countries to take their citizens home, would do wonders with the numbers of illegals in Europe. But the braindead right wing in many countries has been blocking this push for ideology reasons, as racism and xenophobia are their bread and butter and if we in the EU have a far more effect system as a block than as individual nations, then that would talk against their anti-EU rhetoric.

PeteEU said:

The EU commission is in charge

Click to expand...

By "in charge" I meant an elected official - a president or a PM.

Berlaymont is responsible only for the application of decisions made (and voted in conference) by the national-governments of EU member countries.

I don't know which is better-or-worse - a nation with a president or jungling between "heads of national parliaments". The mechanism for a fundamental democracy in the latter class is installed Strasbourg. But, it does not have that much "executive power".

For Executive to exist in Europe, the members of the states would have to elect a common EU leader. That's the hard-part. Who has that strength of character to get elected Prime Minister (or President) of Europe by constituents who speak 24 different languages.

There is, in fact, a great difference between the President and the PM of a nation. Unlike the US, the President of a country in Europe does not handle directly internal affairs - s/he concentrates on external affairs. But they do sometimes set the policy of their "governing party" - which means IF AND ONLY IF said party has a majority in the Legislature.

In France, that is the case. In most other countries however, the position of "President" is purely "nominational" (ie, they are "nominated" and not elected to office) ...

Lafayette said:

The Economist, "They’re buying it: Europe’s economy"



'Nuff said ... ?

Click to expand...

They keep on looking for something to explode because a metric as useless as "corporate types in Berlin are still broadly optimistic—as are those in Paris" doesn't really tell us anything about the global European recovery. At all.

The US intelligentsia keeps on making this mistake itself, confusing the rising GDP (which is almost completely going to the upper 1%) with rising national wages, political stability, and a healthy jobs market. Here's an important thing to keep in mind: Corporations are happy whether people are or aren't getting paid livable wages, have job security, or are straddled with debt. You know what makes or breaks a corporation's happiness? Whether or not they're making money. It doesn't matter if people are working 2 or 3 jobs, in fact they're cheerier when they are taking a majority of the money and underpaying their workers.

Seriously, look at under-and-unemployment in France among young people, and tell me what picture that paints.

FieldTheorist said:

Seriously, look at under-and-unemployment in France among young people, and tell me what picture that paints.

Click to expand...

I know "under-employment well". It started in France in the 1990s and has got worse ever since. We are going on twenty-years soon enough in 2020. For me, in IT, the advent of the Internet was a catastrophe. It changed fundamental paradigms.

The effect was job-disastrous. The Internet has caused a Net Job Destruction. I say "net" because it has created one helluva lotta jobs. But "net", at the bottom-salaries, it has destroyed them. (Particularly the retail-sector and the advent of Amazon. Yes, even in France!)

There is no doubt, however, that at present the work-place has changed, and if you have the right-qualifications you can find a job in France. (Whereas before there was simply nothing offered.) This is in places where industry exists. In those parts of France where the population lives mostly on agriculture, low prices and a disastrous drought have cause increased misery. Farmers are closing their barns definitively.

The young people (who are educated) and out of a job are looking better. But not yet sufficiently to go on a binge. France has two types of Employment Contracts - one for short-term and the other more permanent. The short-term contracts were mostly employed at the low-income level because it allowed companies to better control their manpower-count in line with revenues. They were also repeated and repeated and repeated - which is illegal, but companies did it anyway.

Not many could afford to keep on large numbers of workers when market-demand was simply not strong enough to support it.

But, that is changing as the article I posted originally is showing. It will take another two-to-three years (I figure) for market-demand to catch-up to what it was pre-1990. That is, perennial growth in rather automatic fashion.

But, France is a dichotomy of sorts. It has relatively high unemployment (9% or thereabout) compared to Germany's 3.7%. And yet, both countries have a GDP per capita that are comparable, (48.9K€ for Germany and 42.2K€ for France).

And yet, the principal derivatives of GDP are very different one from the other. France's is dependent upon tourism, whilst Germany upon manufacturing.

Which simply means that if France and Germany are "indicative" (and I think they are) then across the GDP spectrum of industries, the outlook is bettering itself across all employment sectors.

Will it last? Yes, but there is not going to be any turnaround ala USA. The EU is not as "well integrated" as the US in terms of its GDP sector-generators. Unemployed workers in France do not migrate in droves to Poland for a job. (Where the reverse was once the case but is no longer!)

In a few words, "the economic resurgence is solid, but it will take a bit more time to see how timewise sturdy it may be ..."

Lafayette said:

By "in charge" I meant an elected official - a president or a PM.

Click to expand...

Council of Ministers are elected. They are the ones that are in "charge".

Berlaymont is responsible only for the application of decisions made (and voted in conference) by the national-governments of EU member countries.

Click to expand...

Yes... they are civil servants. So what? Again, the day to day running of the EU is done by civil servants.

For Executive to exist in Europe, the members of the states would have to elect a common EU leader. That's the hard-part. Who has that strength of character to get elected Prime Minister (or President) of Europe by constituents who speak 24 different languages.

Click to expand...

Correct, but because the EU has limited areas where there is policy, then why? This is what people forget... the EU does not have its fingers in a vast majority of things that means to be a government/country. The EU does not cover a huge majority of social, educational, legal, justice, and taxation legislation, and if it does influence them in anyway, it is usually because of non discrimination principles and human rights.. which are fundamental principles that dont require a "government" to do anything about, since they have not been changed since forever. The court system does that.

There is, in fact, a great difference between the President and the PM of a nation.

Click to expand...

Not really. Depends on the constitution and what kind of democracy you have. Take Denmark, we have a Prime Minister and a Queen.. she could be a President, but regardless both would be ceremonial like in Germany. Then there is France, more on this later.

Unlike the US, the President of a country in Europe does not handle directly internal affairs - s/he concentrates on external affairs.

Click to expand...

No not true. First off there are a limited number of Presidents in Europe and they vary on their constitutional roles. In France, the president is very powerful.. one could argue more powerful than the American president. In Germany (yes they have one) it is a symbolic position mostly relative to others but is almost fully focused on domestic things.

But they do sometimes set the policy of their "governing party" - which means IF AND ONLY IF said party has a majority in the Legislature.

Click to expand...

Just like the American president. Obama could not do anything because he did not have the majority of the legislature. Trump has absolute majority but due to his incompetence and that of the GOP.. they cant get anything done either.

PeteEU said:

Council of Ministers are elected. They are the ones that are in "charge".

Click to expand...

Berlaymont has no elected ministers. They are all "commissioners" and are unelected.

They are "selected" from a variety of member nations, of which some are ex-ministers.

Nuance ...

Lafayette said:

Berlaymont has no elected ministers. They are all "commissioners" and are unelected.

They are "selected" from a variety of member nations, of which some are ex-ministers.

Nuance ...

Click to expand...

Council of Ministers are elected in each individual country. The Commission is appointed. Two different things.

Lafayette said:

I know "under-employment well". It started in France in the 1990s and has got worse ever since. We are going on twenty-years soon enough in 2020. For me, in IT, the advent of the Internet was a catastrophe. It changed fundamental paradigms.

The effect was job-disastrous. The Internet has caused a Net Job Destruction. I say "net" because it has created one helluva lotta jobs. But "net", at the bottom-salaries, it has destroyed them. (Particularly the retail-sector and the advent of Amazon. Yes, even in France!)

There is no doubt, however, that at present the work-place has changed, and if you have the right-qualifications you can find a job in France. (Whereas before there was simply nothing offered.) This is in places where industry exists. In those parts of France where the population lives mostly on agriculture, low prices and a disastrous drought have cause increased misery. Farmers are closing their barns definitively.

The young people (who are educated) and out of a job are looking better. But not yet sufficiently to go on a binge. France has two types of Employment Contracts - one for short-term and the other more permanent. The short-term contracts were mostly employed at the low-income level because it allowed companies to better control their manpower-count in line with revenues. They were also repeated and repeated and repeated - which is illegal, but companies did it anyway.

Not many could afford to keep on large numbers of workers when market-demand was simply not strong enough to support it.

But, that is changing as the article I posted originally is showing. It will take another two-to-three years (I figure) for market-demand to catch-up to what it was pre-1990. That is, perennial growth in rather automatic fashion.

But, France is a dichotomy of sorts. It has relatively high unemployment (9% or thereabout) compared to Germany's 3.7%. And yet, both countries have a GDP per capita that are comparable, (48.9K€ for Germany and 42.2K€ for France).

And yet, the principal derivatives of GDP are very different one from the other. France's is dependent upon tourism, whilst Germany upon manufacturing.

Which simply means that if France and Germany are "indicative" (and I think they are) then across the GDP spectrum of industries, the outlook is bettering itself across all employment sectors.

Will it last? Yes, but there is not going to be any turnaround ala USA. The EU is not as "well integrated" as the US in terms of its GDP sector-generators. Unemployed workers in France do not migrate in droves to Poland for a job. (Where the reverse was once the case but is no longer!)

In a few words, "the economic resurgence is solid, but it will take a bit more time to see how timewise sturdy it may be ..."

Click to expand...

None of this actually substantiates the claim that living-wage jobs are returning to France and thus we should look to Europe as an example of a rising, post-Recession economy.