• 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!

E.U. Austerity, You Must Be Kidding

PeteEU said:
And it would still have not changed the fundamental problem of a pathetic tax collecting system and other structural problems in the economy. They have been doing this crap for generations after all.. devaluing when things got tough. Being in the Euro prevented this and forced them to face up to the fundamental problems in their society.. yes it was painful and many hate it, but frankly it was needed.
Click to expand...

Does that go for all of the other troubled euro economies? Because just about everybody is having euros hoovered out of their economies and into Germany, and there is no zonewide mechanism for correcting that imbalance. Other than begging Germany for some of their euros back.

Greece certainly has its own problems, but the euro, as constructed, is fundamentally flawed, and this just adds to their misery.
 
Fenton said:
(1) Greece and other European Countries violated the limitations on deficit spending written into the Maastricht treaty.

(2) You can't blame the Euro for the actions of a Government that kept borrowing and building onto a already unsustainable Public Sector while it targeted its private sector with Higher taxes.

(3) The problem with Greece was Greece.
Click to expand...

(1) If I correctly remember, the Germans were the first to violate the debt criteria and have not to my knowledge adhered to them in any single year since entering the Euro.
(2) That is incorrect. By foregoing the flexible rates two things happen:
-Differentials in the inflation rate of non-tradables and asymmetric shocks can no longer be equalized by adjusting the currency value. This loss of flexibility leads to imbalances.
-As there is only one central bank interest rate for all areas, it is too high for recessive regions and too low for booming areas. This accelerates the divergences.

To sustain a one currency area you require labor mobility and large flows of mostly public money from the growth areas to the recessive ones. The populations of Europe have reacted badly to the first and the second was judged illegal by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Constitutional Court), when the introduction of the Euro was challenged.

(3) Yep! They should never have joined.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The problem with Greece is Berlin.

The greeks handcuffed themselves by joining the Euro, where had they control of their own monetary policy, they could have used it to ease their situation.

Every country not named Germany is a fool for having joined the Euro.
Click to expand...

Germany was foolish too, only most people did not realize, what was happening. After entering the Euro at the DM level of the time, Germany fell into many years of stagnation, which was why it violated the Maastricht debt criteria from the start. They had entered at a currency rate that was much too high. The loss was staggering, when you think of the fact that millions were jobless and there was practically no growth for almost a decade.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Does that go for all of the other troubled euro economies? Because just about everybody is having euros hoovered out of their economies and into Germany, and there is no zonewide mechanism for correcting that imbalance. Other than begging Germany for some of their euros back.

Greece certainly has its own problems, but the euro, as constructed, is fundamentally flawed, and this just adds to their misery.
Click to expand...

If the Euro is fundamentally flawed, then every currency that covers large areas is fundamentally flawed.. UK Pound, US Dollar, Indian rupee, Chinese Yuan and so on.

The problem with the Euro was certain aspects were retained by individual states that should have been under the ECB. Things like bank regulations and so on. That is what fundamentally caused problems in most countries. In Spain, bank consolidation created a big bank called Bankia which stood for a large portion of the deposits in Spanish banks. When Bankia started to fail, then under normal non Euro times, the Spanish state/national bank would guarantee deposits in the bank (up to a certain amount) and that would stabilize the banking sector. If the Spanish state did not have the funds to do so, then the national bank would just print the money. Now because Spain is in the Euro, then this possibility is gone, which causes problems because there was no facility to do it in the ECB and no rules to help the Spanish national bank in doing it. So the only alternative was to loan the money on the world markets, which is beyond idiotic, which is why the billions given to Spain is technically not a bailout but banking aid to Bankia.

Now this has changed, with the ECB now gaining regulatory power over the big banks in the Eurozone, so in the future if a big bank starts to go under then it can be fixed and the deposits guaranteed. This should have been part of the Euro from the start, but was not.... a big mistake.

The question is why the above regulations were not under the ECB from the start, and that has to do with the usual negative politics. People in France, Germany and yes.. the UK were against the EU being involved in bank regulations back in the day, and wanted to retain this power. The economic crisis proved this to be a bad idea, but of course the UK still is against it because it refuses to reign in its banking sector despite most of it being at least partially nationalized.

Now if we look at other countries, like the US, when a major bank goes under, then the FDIC will go in and break it up. Problem was and still is, the FDIC does not have the funds to guarantee the deposits of the biggest banks so it has to rely on the state guarantee and the fed. If say Bank of America went under, then the money the FDIC has would not cover 10% of the deposits, so it would have to get funding from the Fed, who basically prints money to meet the difference. Now what would happen if there was no Fed to do that? utter chaos and melt down basically, if the US government were not able to loan the money somewhere.
 
PeteEU said:
If the Euro is fundamentally flawed, then every currency that covers large areas is fundamentally flawed.. UK Pound, US Dollar, Indian rupee, Chinese Yuan and so on.

The problem with the Euro was certain aspects were retained by individual states that should have been under the ECB. Things like bank regulations and so on. That is what fundamentally caused problems in most countries. In Spain, bank consolidation created a big bank called Bankia which stood for a large portion of the deposits in Spanish banks. When Bankia started to fail, then under normal non Euro times, the Spanish state/national bank would guarantee deposits in the bank (up to a certain amount) and that would stabilize the banking sector. If the Spanish state did not have the funds to do so, then the national bank would just print the money. Now because Spain is in the Euro, then this possibility is gone, which causes problems because there was no facility to do it in the ECB and no rules to help the Spanish national bank in doing it. So the only alternative was to loan the money on the world markets, which is beyond idiotic, which is why the billions given to Spain is technically not a bailout but banking aid to Bankia.

Now this has changed, with the ECB now gaining regulatory power over the big banks in the Eurozone, so in the future if a big bank starts to go under then it can be fixed and the deposits guaranteed. This should have been part of the Euro from the start, but was not.... a big mistake.

The question is why the above regulations were not under the ECB from the start, and that has to do with the usual negative politics. People in France, Germany and yes.. the UK were against the EU being involved in bank regulations back in the day, and wanted to retain this power. The economic crisis proved this to be a bad idea, but of course the UK still is against it because it refuses to reign in its banking sector despite most of it being at least partially nationalized.
Click to expand...

That may address some problems, but not all. The power to bail out banks is certainly necessary, but there is going to be all sorts of internal tension about how to wield this power. Those countries are still countries, and I think they are irritated by the ECB's control over their spending and banks, even though they agreed to give up that power. The E.U. is still lacking a political body that could make these decisions (and more). How much power should countries give up to a central bank, anyway? Where is the enforcement mechanism? Countries have been flaunting the Maastricht rules (or are they guidelines?) for years, and they are only 20 years in.


PeteEU said:
Now if we look at other countries, like the US, when a major bank goes under, then the FDIC will go in and break it up. Problem was and still is, the FDIC does not have the funds to guarantee the deposits of the biggest banks so it has to rely on the state guarantee and the fed. If say Bank of America went under, then the money the FDIC has would not cover 10% of the deposits, so it would have to get funding from the Fed, who basically prints money to meet the difference. Now what would happen if there was no Fed to do that? utter chaos and melt down basically, if the US government were not able to loan the money somewhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we have a Fed, and our government can make the decision to bail out banks, redistribute dollars, and do whatever else they deem in the best interests of the country. I don't understand why you are posing this hypothetical.

Another difference is that the American government (and other fiat currency regimes) can (and do) hold the liabilities on the dollars they create, while the ECB does not. (I'm not sure, but I think the original exchange of euros for the various old currencies came without liability.) Euros are loaned to central banks, along with the liabilities. That makes for a very difficult situation when euros are lost to leakage, like savings or trade imbalances.

This is a good paper on the problems, written back in the day: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-all-that
 
PeteEU said:
Now if we look at other countries, like the US, when a major bank goes under, then the FDIC will go in and break it up. Problem was and still is, the FDIC does not have the funds to guarantee the deposits of the biggest banks so it has to rely on the state guarantee and the fed. If say Bank of America went under, then the money the FDIC has would not cover 10% of the deposits, so it would have to get funding from the Fed, who basically prints money to meet the difference. Now what would happen if there was no Fed to do that? utter chaos and melt down basically, if the US government were not able to loan the money somewhere.
Click to expand...
Unless BoA's assets became COMPLETELY worthless, those assets would likely cover at least 90% of the deposits. Therefore, while saying that the FDIC only has 10% on hand to cover all of BoA's assets sounds really scary, it doesn't mean much.
 
PeteEU said:
If the Euro is fundamentally flawed, then every currency that covers large areas is fundamentally flawed.. UK Pound, US Dollar, Indian rupee, Chinese Yuan and so on.

The problem with the Euro was certain aspects were retained by individual states that should have been under the ECB. Things like bank regulations and so on. That is what fundamentally caused problems in most countries. In Spain, bank consolidation created a big bank called Bankia which stood for a large portion of the deposits in Spanish banks. When Bankia started to fail, then under normal non Euro times, the Spanish state/national bank would guarantee deposits in the bank (up to a certain amount) and that would stabilize the banking sector. If the Spanish state did not have the funds to do so, then the national bank would just print the money. Now because Spain is in the Euro, then this possibility is gone, which causes problems because there was no facility to do it in the ECB and no rules to help the Spanish national bank in doing it. So the only alternative was to loan the money on the world markets, which is beyond idiotic, which is why the billions given to Spain is technically not a bailout but banking aid to Bankia.

Now this has changed, with the ECB now gaining regulatory power over the big banks in the Eurozone, so in the future if a big bank starts to go under then it can be fixed and the deposits guaranteed. This should have been part of the Euro from the start, but was not.... a big mistake.

The question is why the above regulations were not under the ECB from the start, and that has to do with the usual negative politics. People in France, Germany and yes.. the UK were against the EU being involved in bank regulations back in the day, and wanted to retain this power. The economic crisis proved this to be a bad idea, but of course the UK still is against it because it refuses to reign in its banking sector despite most of it being at least partially nationalized.

Now if we look at other countries, like the US, when a major bank goes under, then the FDIC will go in and break it up. Problem was and still is, the FDIC does not have the funds to guarantee the deposits of the biggest banks so it has to rely on the state guarantee and the fed. If say Bank of America went under, then the money the FDIC has would not cover 10% of the deposits, so it would have to get funding from the Fed, who basically prints money to meet the difference. Now what would happen if there was no Fed to do that? utter chaos and melt down basically, if the US government were not able to loan the money somewhere.
Click to expand...

Dude, you basically just made the case for why the Euro sucks for me. What's Europe's answer to the Fed? There is none, and that's the problem.

You can't dip your toe in the water and go half way. You either have to have a central bank that acts like a central bank and has all the powers of a central bank..... or you need to have separate currencies for each country. That's what's fundamentally wrong with the Euro.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Dude, you basically just made the case for why the Euro sucks for me. What's Europe's answer to the Fed? There is none, and that's the problem.

You can't dip your toe in the water and go half way. You either have to have a central bank that acts like a central bank and has all the powers of a central bank..... or you need to have separate currencies for each country. That's what's fundamentally wrong with the Euro.
Click to expand...

And the ECB now does have powers of a central bank.. problem solved.
 
PeteEU said:
And the ECB now does have powers of a central bank.. problem solved.
Click to expand...

You do know that these powers of which you speak were contested before the German Constitutional Court, which referred the case to the European High Court, because it thought it probably against European law and would prefer to let the European Court knock the EZB down so they did not have to declare it unconstitutional. The Court sent the case to the EU saying that no matter, what the decision, the German court reserved the right to declare the actions of the EZB unconstitutional by German law. You see, if they must do that, the hypothesis supporting the legality of the Euro would be in more doubt than it already is. This would be quite a problem in Germany, where the construction of the Euro is rather under fire and not at all as cut and dry as EU lobbyists like to make out. How the decision will run seems open right now, but it is an EU court and it would be truly astonishing if it did anything to rock the boat in which it sits. In any event the European court accepted to rule on the case.

You always like to do the link thing, so I thought you might want to see these:

Germany

ECB paralysed by German court decision as deflation threatens - Telegraph

Top German court refers ECB bond-buying case to EU judges | EurActiv
 
MTAtech said:
Unless BoA's assets became COMPLETELY worthless, those assets would likely cover at least 90% of the deposits. Therefore, while saying that the FDIC only has 10% on hand to cover all of BoA's assets sounds really scary, it doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...

That is provided that the housing market is not in total flux and valuing those assets are near impossible, which was the case in 2007-9... hell one could even say it is the case to day.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
That may address some problems, but not all. The power to bail out banks is certainly necessary, but there is going to be all sorts of internal tension about how to wield this power. Those countries are still countries, and I think they are irritated by the ECB's control over their spending and banks, even though they agreed to give up that power. The E.U. is still lacking a political body that could make these decisions (and more). How much power should countries give up to a central bank, anyway? Where is the enforcement mechanism? Countries have been flaunting the Maastricht rules (or are they guidelines?) for years, and they are only 20 years in.
Click to expand...

All valid points and there is a lot that has to be implemented.. Rome was not built over night as they say. However there is a political body to deal with it and they are dealing with it. As for how much power the national banks should give up to the ECB.. well a lot, since the national banks should only be extensions of the ECB now days. One of the last bastions of the National banks was to secure the financial health of the banking sectors, which is now in the hands of the ECB .. as it should have been from the start.

As for enforcement and control of financial budgets in individual countries. So tell me this.. how much control and enforcement does the Fed and the Federal government have over the individual US states?

I know fully well that the ECB is as of yet not functioning as a fully fledged national bank would due to political restrictions put in place by countries like the UK and Germany.. yes the UK still has influence over the ECB. But saying that, the Fed, and other national banks were no where what they are today and took decades and centuries to evolve to what they do today. The ECB has to go through this process also, but in a much shorter time frame.

As for breaking the Maastricht rules.. they are guidelines more than rules, and were never intended to be a hard limit. And most countries that have gone over the limit during normal economic times, have done so relatively marginally. It is however ironic that the anti-EU crowd have been bantering on about this issue for 20 years, and yet never mention the fact that the US and UK have had massive deficits for many many decades.. often exceeding a 3% margin.

Yeah, but we have a Fed, and our government can make the decision to bail out banks, redistribute dollars, and do whatever else they deem in the best interests of the country. I don't understand why you are posing this hypothetical.

Another difference is that the American government (and other fiat currency regimes) can (and do) hold the liabilities on the dollars they create, while the ECB does not. (I'm not sure, but I think the original exchange of euros for the various old currencies came without liability.) Euros are loaned to central banks, along with the liabilities. That makes for a very difficult situation when euros are lost to leakage, like savings or trade imbalances.
Click to expand...

The ECB does not create Euros in the same way as the Fed creates dollars. The ECB does not expand the money supply by printing more money... they should, but they are blocked by Germany.

This is a good paper on the problems, written back in the day: Wynne Godley · Maastricht and All That · LRB 8 October 1992
Click to expand...

Back in the day is a good one.. the paper was written in 1992. But in a way he was right on some points.
 
PeteEU said:
So far so good.. but then you had to go and do this.



Greece has never had full employment and the policy was never any where near this, both by the left wing parties and the right wing parties. Greece's problem was very simple, the tax income could not meet the cost in running the state. Now one could say that then cut the state, but that would never have solved the problem because the problem was a fundamental issue with how taxes were viewed and collected in Greece.

The difference between Greece and the US on their views on taxes and what the state should do are not that different. What is different is the effectiveness of their tax laws and collecting authorities. In the US, the IRS is relatively effective in collecting taxes.. in Greece, the equivalent authority is a tip box in the corner of an office.



Which is what they have been doing (along with Italy) for generations and it still would not have solved the fundamental problem of that economy. Devaluation is a band-aid on a severed limb, pissing in your pants to get warm type situation.



LOL no it did not. Far far from it! Wealthy people and corporations paid next to no taxes and were massive tax dodgers. Regulation wise it was up to who you could bribe, and since most private companies were either owned by government employees or politicians, then it was not that hard. In fact most of Greece´s biggest "companies", like ship yards, telecoms, airlines were all still owned by the state and that was part of the problem. There was no real privatization going in the country despite not only EU law saying it had to happen, but the fact that Greece´s own laws and regulations said they had to happen. Due to incompetence and corruption these privatizations simply never happened.



Utter bull****. It is the ultimate example of what happens with unbridled capitalism and greed... the few control everything and let the rest rot.
Click to expand...

That's a contradiction.

How is a Government taxing and borrowing to feed highly a corrupt and ever expanding Public Sector " unbridled capitalism" ?

By law, any new Party voted into power had to retain all public sector employees hired before them while they hired their own to take new positions.

And the deficit spending limitations in the Maastricht treaty, whether they be enforcable by law or just a kind suggestion were still placed their for a good reason.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
Lithuania has actually engaged in austerity.

It actually wasn't that bad...
Click to expand...

Yes, the Baltics engaged in real austerity and they are doing better than PIIGS.

But the real issue is the Keynesian propaganda (coughKrugmancough) that paints the entire EU as a failure of austerity when in fact only the Baltics really practiced it and they are the ones whose economy is back to normal.
 
Imo, the reason the 'recovery' has taken SOOOO long and been so feeble (except for the skyrocketing stock markets which helps the rich) is because of too much government spending/control.

They have horrible skewed the economies and made them government dependent.

There have been recessions in America (on average) every 6 years since 1776...and almost all of them enjoyed full and complete recoveries without ANY appreciable government assistance. It is just this moronic Keynesian nonsense (the moocher's paradise) that has caused this particular 'recovery' to be so tepid (while costing taxpayers/central banks many trillions of dollars).
Since Obama took office, there are 1 million less all important 25-54 age range people employed, over 13 million more people on food stamps and the national debt is up about 60%...but the rich have gotten FAR richer with huge windfalls in the stock markets and luxury real estate.

Keynesianism is a gigantic failure and yet all these Krugmanites can do is ask for more money...even though they have ZERO proof that any recovery that the economy has enjoyed since 2008 would not have occurred at least as fast had the economy been left alone to right itself (plus the fact that EVERY recession since 1776 without significant government assistance has righted itself).

The ONLY way (imo) that the world's economies will ever fully recover is for the government's to get the f@ck out of the way (including helping their rich pals) and let the economies right themselves.
 
PoS said:
Yes, the Baltics engaged in real austerity and they are doing better than PIIGS.

But the real issue is the Keynesian propaganda (coughKrugmancough) that paints the entire EU as a failure of austerity when in fact only the Baltics really practiced it and they are the ones whose economy is back to normal.
Click to expand...
Meh...I wouldn't call large monetary inputs from the EU "austerity":

JULY 18, 2012 // BY: JAMES MEADWAY

Fans of slash-and-burn economics are keen to talk about the Baltics. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania suffered amongst the worst crashes of anywhere in the world over 2008-9, with GDP falling in a single year by 17% for Lithuania, 20% for Estonia and 25% for Latvia. But what gets the axe-wielders excited is their sharp rebound since then, with growth across the three averaging 6.3% for 2011.

Each country implemented, after 2009, very sharp austerity programmes, forcing through cuts in spending of around 8-9% of GDP. In defiance of experience elsewhere, they have all shown signs of recovery since. Therefore austerity works – if it’s aggressive enough.

Sharp-eyed readers may have noticed that if your economy shrinks by 25%, and then grows by 5.5%, you’re still a good few years away, at least, from simply getting back to where you were. But leaving that aside, the austerity-is-good-for-you story doesn’t add up.

Rainer Kattel and Ringa Raudla give three reasons why. First, all three rely on massive transfers of funding from the EU – 20% of the national budget in the case of Estonia. Funding on that scale cannot help but deliver some results.

Second, all three have seen mass emigration over the last four years, particularly amongst the young. All three have the highest emigration rates in the EU, with 24 people out of every 1,000 leaving Lithuania in the last year. This, in turn, has restrained domestic unemployment; and while people should be free to go and find work where they can, their exit hardly counts as a ringing endorsement for the government. Rather than protest, as Kattel and Raudla suggest, many are choosing to leave.

Third, all three are very closely tied to comparatively prosperous neighbours. Scandinavia in general suffered only a shallow recession over 2008-9, while Poland did not experience one at all. During the boom, Baltic states developed “enclave industries” – a few major companies tied very closely to larger capitalist states nearby, like Sweden and Finland. These have driven export growth after the crash, with exports now returning to precrisis levels. Again, however, this has little to do with austerity, and much to do with a happy accident of geography.

None of these factors are sustainable. EU funding dries up in 2015. Emigration cannot continue indefinitely. And with the eurozone showing no signs of a general recovery, exporting to near neighbours has to be considered a risky strategy.

The Baltic states have driven through austerity, at huge cost – aside from the emigration, real wages have fallen on average by 15% in the last few years. But there are few reasons to suppose its “success” can be sustained.
The myth of successful Baltic austerity | New Economics Foundation
​
\



And the Baltic region is heading into a double dip....

Baltic GDP growth.webp
 
Anyone who thinks that government stimulus/intervention is essential to a healthy economy is a macroeconomic ignoramus.

Unfortunately, that list includes most 'economists', Bernanke, Obama, Yellen and almost every important bean counter at the Fed.
 
If Greece hadn't tied itself to the euro they likely would have gone the way of Argentina in the year 2000. That's when their 55% middle class became 15% over night and that 40% who left the middle didn't join the rich.

Your statement that joining the euro / Germany cost them? So explain it. My opinion is they'd have ended up like Argentina and it's just an opinion ... One opposite of your own so can you explain why joining the Euro / Germany was bad for them?

Peter Grimm said:
The problem with Greece is Berlin.

The greeks handcuffed themselves by joining the Euro, where had they control of their own monetary policy, they could have used it to ease their situation.

Every country not named Germany is a fool for having joined the Euro.
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Meh...I wouldn't call large monetary inputs from the EU "austerity":
Click to expand...

You need a better source for your information.

lithuania-government-budget1.png


lithuania-gdp-growth-annual.png


And the Baltic region is heading into a double dip....

View attachment 67174546
Click to expand...

None of those nations entered a double dip recession, so I don't think I need to tell you how inaccurate your information is.

As I reiterate, you need better sources for your information. That really goes without saying...
 
Peter Grimm said:
The problem with Greece is Berlin.

The greeks handcuffed themselves by joining the Euro, where had they control of their own monetary policy, they could have used it to ease their situation.

Every country not named Germany is a fool for having joined the Euro.
Click to expand...

Greece hasn't fooled themselves into doing anything. Greece is not a country with a history of preserving the value of its own currency. It's the reason why the nation is on the Euro in the first place.

It needs the Euro, otherwise, the nation would literally destroy itself... again.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
You need a better source for your information.
Click to expand...
You need to check your eyesight, you only reiterated the World Bank data.





None of those nations entered a double dip recession, so I don't think I need to tell you how inaccurate your information is.
Click to expand...
Again, eyesight...or comprehension issue...I said they are heading towards a double-dip. Take your straw and ...


67174546d1413652856-e-u-austerity-you-must-kidding-baltic-gdp-growth.jpg

As I reiterate, you need better sources for your information. That really goes without saying...
Click to expand...
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=ophthalmology+NYC
 
DA60 said:
Anyone who thinks that government stimulus/intervention is essential to a healthy economy is a macroeconomic ignoramus.

Unfortunately, that list includes most 'economists', Bernanke, Obama, Yellen and almost every important bean counter at the Fed.
Click to expand...
The revealing of your totally messed up analysis of the current set of economic conditions shows why you lose debate so often.

This is not a healthy economy, and the economists you cited believe intervention is required when markets have failed.

It is the height of stupidity to believe markets are self correcting.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, eyesight...or comprehension issue...I said they are heading towards a double-dip.
Click to expand...

Typical gimmesometruth replies. Short on facts, long on trolling/rude behavior. The woman was not rude to you - why do you have to be rude to her?

Maybe you are just a troll who just wants to insult people for kicks.


So the Baltic States are heading into a recession?

Is this you talking or is this from your 'New Economics Foundation' report from 2 YEARS ago?

Either way..here is your Baltic states recession...

latvia-gdp-growth.png


estonia-gdp-growth.png


lithuania-gdp-growth.png


All three countries GDP's are rising, not falling. Yes, Estonia double dipped (but ONLY Estonia).

And you did not say 'had double dipped'...you said 'heading towards'.


So where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the Baltic States are 'heading towards' a double dip recession'?

Or do you have to wait until your buddies at the New Economics Foundation (the same brainiacs that propose a 21 hour work week) to answer it for you?


The questions are rhetorical btw, as I have little respect for your economic 'sense' PLUS I try not to waste my time on trolls (I did this time out of boredom) so I don't much care what your answer is.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Typical gimmesometruth replies. Short on facts, long on trolling/rude behavior. The woman was not rude to you - why do you have to be so rude to her?

Maybe you are just a troll who just wants to insult people for kicks.


So the Baltic States are heading into a recession?

Is this you talking or is this from your 'New Economics Foundation' report from 2 YEARS ago?

Either way..here is your Baltic states recession...

latvia-gdp-growth.png


estonia-gdp-growth.png


lithuania-gdp-growth.png


All three countries GDP's are rising, not falling. Yes, Estonia double dipped (but ONLY Estonia).

And you did not say 'had double dipped'...you said 'heading towards'.


So where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that the Baltic States are 'heading towards' a double dip recession'?

Or do you have to wait until your buddies at the New Economics Foundation (the same brainiacs that propose a 21 hour work week) to answer it for you?


The questions are rhetorical btw, as I have little respect for your economic 'sense' PLUS I try not to waste my time on trolls (I did this time out of boredom) so I don't care what your answer is.

Good day.
Click to expand...

Er you do realize they might be rising, but they are still not at the same level as before the crisis. Plus the Baltic states got tons of aid from Scandinavia since independence.
 
PeteEU said:
Er you do realize they might be rising, but they are still not at the same level as before the crisis. Plus the Baltic states got tons of aid from Scandinavia since independence.
Click to expand...

Er you do realize I mentioned NOTHING about what you are talking about?

I mentioned two things - how the guy was rude (apparently) without provocation (par for the course for a troll - er, sorry - him) AND how statistically baseless his prediction of an impending double dip recession in the Baltic's states were...that's it.

As for the rest? The Baltics can become one country and change their name to Bat Guano for all I care.



Good day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Anyone who thinks that government stimulus/intervention is essential to a healthy economy is a macroeconomic ignoramus.

Unfortunately, that list includes most 'economists', Bernanke, Obama, Yellen and almost every important bean counter at the Fed.
Click to expand...
It isn't that "government stimulus/intervention is essential to a healthy economy." It's that government stimulus/intervention cushions the up and down swings in a market economy, obviating pain and suffering of the people. Sure, government could choose to do nothing and have the nation ride out a depression but why would one want to do that when it could be avoided or mitigated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom